NZSkep

odd analagy, from the point of view of , say, johnnys teacher then yes lack of evidence (such as a tick in the register, empty desk) is evidenceof absence. It is not proof of absence though.

Just like lack of evidence for any gods existence is evidence of the absence of god, but is not proof of the absence of any god. Such proof is impossible as we all know.

TomboyMom

O.K., I guess. No one say Johnny at school today. That is evidence that he did not come.

fast

Oh okay, I get it now...you mean as in "supporting evidence". If that's what you mean, then yeah :bulb:

Somehow or another I was thinking evidence as in "conclusive evidence". My bad!


I feel better.

fast

Yeah, I don't know what I was thinkin'. Like my previous post, I was interpreting "evidence" incorrectly.

Alf

Part of the point is that our skepticism has evolved. I would assume primitive man believed easily a buddy if he said that it was some god up there who caused the thunder. He saw the thunder, it was mighty, he heard a loud noise like someone with a thunderous voice booming and he saw no reason to doubt it and so he accepted it.

Later, and especially in the last few hundred years we have seen that man has been mistaken about so many things and so we are more skeptical. True, skepticism has been around for a long time but always on the fringe. It is only in the last couple of years that a larger portion of our population becomes more and more xkspetical towards "old truths".

So yeah, the burden of proof should have been with the person who claimed there is a god there but the ancient man was too dumb to figure that out and so just accepted it. It is therefore the theist of today who must do it for them. Provide that proof that they naver have before. Now is the time to put up or shut up :-)

Alf

Alf

If you bothered to call the teacher and ask and he or she said "yes, Johnny did come to school today" you got the proof right there.

Abscence of evidence is evidence of abscence if you have done a thorough honest job of searching for evidence and come up empty. Especially if you have done that over an extensive period of time.

Christians have had 2000 years to come up with evidence and come up empty handed. I am very sure they don't lack motivation or will to provide the evidence if there was any. Thus we can conclude that there really is no evidence. They did call the teacher to the extent they could and they didn't get any answer confirming that Johnny did show up in school and so we can conclude that he didn't.

When is the time when we can say "enough is enough"? They had 2000 years to come up with their evidence and they have absolutely nothing to show for it other than a book full of contradictions, absurdities and silliness. True, there are a few wise words in the bible also, it is not ONLY bull, but those pearls of wisdom are more like needles in haystack than most christians would like to admit. This from a deity they claim is omnipotent and loving and omniscient?

Utter BS.

In this case the absence of evidence IS evidence of absence.

How about this one:

Start with the assumption: There is no god.
Add in reasonable other assumptions based on the world we see around us.
You end up with the world exactly as we see it.

Part 2: Start with the assumption: there is a loving caring, omnipotent omniscient god who created the universe.
Add in reasonable other assumptions based on the world we see around us.
You end up with a completely different world. A loving caring god wouldn't make the world we see around us today. True, some christians make up rationalizations as to why there is bad thigns in the world why bad things happens to good people etc but it is all rationalizations. They are ad hoc and don't ring true.

Conclusion: There is no god.

Alf

Stephen T-B

I think "evidence" and "proofs" are sometimes confused by theists.
As far as I know, "evidence" offers a range of possibilities, from "very weak" to "very strong", whereas "proof" is absolute.
Christians point to the Universe and all that's in it as "proof" of their god's existence, because their god, they say, made all of it.

But this, of course, requires proof that their god did make all of it.

"Proof" that he did, they say, is provided by the Bible.
But atheists know that's not proof.
It is evidence of sorts, but extremely weak evidence. Just as the "feeling deep within me that God loves me" is extremely weak evidence that a god does indeed love that individual.

Unfortunately, evaluating evidence is a skill which is negated by the power of whishful thinking.

fast

I just realized something else. Not only have I conflated evidence with proof, but I've also mistaken evidence to only be physical.

Example, given what I've learned here, it is false to say that we have no evidence to suggest a God doesn't exist. We do have evidence. Some may say it's lack of evidence, but it's intangible evidence. We have evidence of absence.

Hoping I got that correct.

PS, thanks Alf

UncleJim

Lack of evidence is purely "lack of evidence". It is not a proof that nothing does or can exist.

mighty_duck

UncleJim, Did you read this thread before replying? No one is claiming that lack of evidence is proof, merely that it is very strong evidence in itself.

If you disagree, please counter some of the very convincing posts made above.