The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence?
What you think?
2007-11-21 07:04:22 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
It took me a minute, but yes, I do agree! There has to be some faith, though and a willingness to understand that almost everything that goes on in this world is so much more out of our control than we want to believe.
2007-11-21 07:12:18 · answer #1 · answered by bainaashanti 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The absence of evidence for the existence of a given thing is evidence, not of its absence, but of its lack of existence.
In other words, the absence of evidence is evidence only of the absence of evidence, not evidence of absence.
2007-11-21 15:17:00 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Abby from NCIS frequently claims that she knows how to kill someone without leaving any forensic evidence.
She's a fictional character, and she always intends that to be a mock threat, but still, she's a credible enough character that I believe she'd be capable of committing such a murder if she were a real person who wanted to kill someone.
That doesn't mean she wouldn't have commited the crime, though.
Lack of evidence might just be evidence of a very, very skilled mind.
"If you do it right, people will wonder if you did anything at all." --God, from 'Futurama'
2007-11-21 15:17:58 · answer #3 · answered by Chantal G 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That is absolutely true. Evidence is just that, and lack of evidence doesn't mean diddly squat. If a murder is committed, and there is no evidence leading to the killer, does that mean there is no killer? Of course not.
Faith, and belief, exist because there is a lack of physical evidence.
Oddly enough, I'll bet I have some fundies who agree with me on this one - first time in a long time that will have happened.
2007-11-21 15:09:55 · answer #4 · answered by Katie Short, Atheati Princess 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
einstein worked on a lot of principals, one of which was primary and called a hypothesis-the absence of evidence, but overwhelming support by other testifying facts. he bacame a christian and is still one of the minds of the world.
2007-11-21 15:52:24 · answer #5 · answered by yeshuaseedplanter 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
uh, yeah it is. absence of evidence is indeed evidence for absence
not PROOF of absence, but evidence for it
see also: unicorns. oh wait, you can't. hmmm, wonder why
2007-11-21 15:08:53 · answer #6 · answered by grandfather raven 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I just want to say that Blessededr is an idiot for comparing Kidneys, lungs and heart with spiritual world and said "you cant see either but they are there working". How stupid dude.. Do you not see a prove of the kidney, heart, and lungs have you even seen a pair of kidneys, have you attended school? spirits cannot be proven, and who ever gave him thumps up is as stupid as he is.
2007-11-21 15:17:57 · answer #7 · answered by LetsGetReal 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely, for a practical application it works in court of law, too.
Personally, I see miracles as proof, physical evicence without scientific explanation.
2007-11-21 15:14:10 · answer #8 · answered by Noelle M 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is always evidence If you don't believe it ask a detective.
2007-11-21 15:11:54 · answer #9 · answered by GREGORIOUSITY 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
There is no such thing as 'god'. Humans find the need to need so they can invent and believe anything. There is/are no evidence(s) that a 'god' exist, he or she exist for humans who wishes it. With all the sufferings in this world, it sounds to me that 'god' is a sadist and a masochist.
2007-11-21 15:11:14 · answer #10 · answered by !truth! 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋