kirby007 said:
Because the absense of evidence isnt the evidence of absense |
Well, there are two problems with that.
First of all, the absence of evidence can indeed be the evidence of absence. Let's say for example, I told you I owned 4 award winning show dogs. You come to my house. You see no dog, no dog food, no leash, no fur anywhere, no treats, no dog poop, no bones, etc. I have no pictures of my dogs and I, can't produce any certificates from the shows they won, and so on so forth. You talk to everyone I know, and none of them can remember ever seeing me with my dogs. You'd probably conclude that I lied about owning show dogs. Wouldn't you? Because if I do own show dogs, their should be evidence of it. In such cases, the absence of evidence is the evidence of absence. I actually believe that except in rare cases, the absence of evidence is the only way to disprove an existential claim.
Depending on what god you believe in, there should potentially be evidence. If you believe in a god that actively intervenes with the universe, then there definitely should be some kind of evidence. If we can't find that evidence, we have good reason to believe that particular god doesn't exist.
Secondly, even if we accept that premise for the sake of argument, that still doesn't give reason to believe. If something cannot be proven to be false, does that mean it is reasonable to accept it as true?
Last edited by JWeinCom - on 12 August 2019
