Does lack of evidence work as evidence of lack, in this sense? [Spirituality & Religion]

So, here's my example (yes, I know, the unicorn example has been done to death but I find it's a great analogy):

So let's say I walk up to you and say, "Unicorns exist. Prove me wrong." Of course your initial response would be that you don't have to, which I'd say would be justified, but could this response also work?

"Well, think for a second. If unicorns were real, we would see its impact on the planet. We would find fossilized unicorn horns, unicorn footprints, etc. But we've scoured the planet looking for these types of evidence or impact, and found nothing. We have lived on this planet for around 200,000 years, in since our existence we have found no trace of verifiable evidence to prove the existence of such creatures. Therefore, unicorns don't exist."

Basically I'm thinking that perhaps absence can work as evidence of absence if there is no evidence where it counts, for example, someone says it rained two hours ago, and you check the roads. There's not a hint of moisture on them, and the sun is shining brightly. Therefore, it probably didn't rain.

Of course, there is still a possibility, but this hypothetically allows for a good probability of non-existence.

I'm posting this in the "Religion and Spirituality" section because I think this could work for the God question as well. Thanks in advance.

Top | Newest First | Oldest First

Blue02berry · 26-30, M Best Comment

They're real, I found one, case closed, go home everyone.

LadyGrace · 70-79

Never try to figure God out. Our finite minds can never figure out an infinite God. What you're looking for is absolute proof. Wasn't meant to be that way. God told us exactly what we need to know, to make it to heaven. That's the most important thing. For what shall it profit a man, if he gains the whole world, but loses his own soul?

View 1 more replies »

LadyGrace · 70-79

@Animore: Respectfully....Then you've just proved my point. Your last sentence confirms it. You must have proof or you won't believe. You stated you wish for evidence. Same thing. God was not meant to be proven. He already proved himself, anyway. He came right in the flesh, and people still rejected him, just as they do today, and always will...those who truly don't want to. If they did, they wouldn't insist on evidence, when Jesus clearly stated that without faith it is impossible to please God. His own disciple, doubting Thomas, saw and touched Him, and only then would he believe. Jesus said, You have seen Me and now believe. Blessed is he that has not seen Me, yet believes. So just because some don't understand, they will mistakenly dismiss it. Would rather lose their own soul, than trust God. There's many things we don't understand in this world, yet we still trust them. This is one thing one cannot afford to miss. One's own salvation. For that determines where one shall spend eternity. I don't know about you, but I'm not about to miss that. No excuse will do on that day we meet the Lord. All excuses do is end one up in a place he'd give anything to get out of. God is not against people. He is against sin, because it separates us from God. He did something about that. Believe it or not. Your choice, and we all have to make it. God doesn't send you to hell. Your own sins do. He provided a way of escape, with His own, precious life and blood. Something we should be grateful for, not run from. He didn't have to do it. But He did. He volunteered to die in your place, but you must accept His free gift of forgiveness. He can't make that decision for you.

Animore · 26-30, M

@ImagineThat: No, it's not the same thing. http://wiki.c2.com/?EvidenceVersusProof Here's the difference.

If He was proven, there would be definitive, stone-cold evidence to support His existence. What you did there is begging the question- assuming His deity to give evidence for His deity. There is no evidence whatsoever that He came in the flesh.

You provided a bunch of tales from Scripture. This could not help support your case. I could hold up any book and say that this is the true, ultimate book. It is infallible. It doesn't make it so.

LadyGrace · 70-79

@Animore: okay

IvanKaramazov

Yes, you're correct. The "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" thing is generally true in the abstract, but absence of evidence is evidence of absence if there is an absence where such evidence ought to be found. If you have some verifiable theory, say evolution, which predicts that if X exists, you should find Y and Z also, and Y and Z are not forthcoming, then you are at least justified in supposing X is false.

Of course, as with all empirical claims where you are generalizing from a sample and do not have every case in front of you, you can't make absolutely certain pronouncements, but the quest for absolute certainty is something of misleading ideal anyway. It may, for instance, turn out that unicorns do exist, but they just vanish into nothingness upon death, so the predictions made by evolution about fossils and such just don't apply to this special case.

Still, you're basically correct.

Animore · 26-30, M

Thanks, and yes, as I stated in my original post, I don't think you can prove something with absolute certainty with these types of arguments.

SW-User

What's the question you're trying to argue here? Whether God exists?

The flaw lies in the incompatability of the question and the demand for proof. In asking the question, you are demanding a provable answer based int eh scientific method. However, the question involves faith, not proof, and pertains to both a subject and a time well outside the Age of Reason.

So no, there is no ultimately appropriate strategy for "Does God exist". It's like asking about a tree on the woods; it's more a rhetorical question.

"Faith is the substance of hope and the evidence of things unseen."

Redstar · 36-40, M

A lack of evidence can never prove anything.
Going purely by evidence or lack thereof and ignoring the fact that Religion is man-made and therefore so is God... we can't accurately say God doesn't exist based solely on the lack of evidence, we can however, say there's no reason to believe in something that there is absolutely no evidence for. But the best way to prove God doesn't exist is by continuing to find evidence that goes against what Religions say happened.
In Christianity, God supposedly created the Earth in 6 days. But we know that that isn't true because the Universe started off with The Big Bang and we know how all the stars and planets were really formed, over a very long period of time.
The more we learn about the Universe and ourselves, the more we push the God theory away and can all concentrate on important things that are actually real :)

Animore · 26-30, M

Well, as I've stated, it could never definitively prove something. Nevertheless, it brings about a probability, one that should be considered. If I said there was an Ogre that caused trees to grow, yet there was no sign of this, only sign of it growing via natural causes, then one could say that it's probably the case that there is no such ogre.

But what's the reason for saying "probably"? My pen will probably not disobey the laws of gravity. There's a big probability that it won't, but it's not definitive. Saying "probably" is useless.

Thanks in advance.

AcidBurn

We're still discovering lots of things we've been missing all these years.
Also, it did rain here, briefly, and was dry and sunny two hours later.

Animore · 26-30, M

Fair enough, but as I've stated it doesn't guarantee perfect certainty (and one can argue complete certainty is a close-minded thought process) but it does give it in a reasonable degree.

AcidBurn

Lack of evidence can make a case. But I don't think it can prove anything.

Animore · 26-30, M

Well, certainly not, but there's a difference between proving something and providing evidence for something.

It's quite hard to prove something, mind you, unless you can see the actual and complete manifestation of such. In most scientific theories, the best we have is evidence, and even then theories are constantly looked over and attempted to disprove.

Thanks in advance.

Jackaloftheazuresand · 26-30, M

Science will never explain magic. By that token you must live in the logical world and accept the premise that reality is real. So yes.

Add a comment...