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.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

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.