"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

[Tank]

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

We often hear this said by people who try to justify the existence of a supernatural realm and a sentient all powerful entity, a god, that exists in that realm and interacts with the natural realm we perceive.

But when does the absence of evidence reveal that the probability of something existing is just wishful thinking?

Consider religions, all religions. For discussions sake let's say that humans started thinking about a supernatural realm 100,000 years ago. Personally I think that is a conservative estimate as we are now finding evidence that Neanderthals were superstitious.

Consider the tribal nature of humanity. We evolved all across the planet and created familial tribes as we went. Many of these tribes created their own unique cultural superstitions with their own pantheon of spirits and mini-gods.

So over hundreds of thousands of years many tens of thousands of belief systems evolved.
And how many people believed these superstitions? Well in the absence of any viable naturalistic alternative the vast majority of humanity believed their local superstitions.

So billions of humans, over hundreds of thousands of years, across tens of thousands of beliefs have lived their lives believing fairy stories. And not one claim by any of these people has a single shred of evidence to support it.

So while "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" the total lack of evidence does show that the possibility of the existence of a supernatural realm and a sentient all powerful entity, a god, that exists in that realm and interacts with the natural realm we perceive is effectively impossible.

The probability of the existence of a god is trillions to one. To live one's life based on such a tenuous probability is nothing short of insane. And it gets worse when people make up cultures based on that insanity.

Your thoughts?

[Asmodean]

You don't usually need evidence for absence - you need evidence for presence.

Yes, absence of evidence can be the evidence of absence, unless sufficient evidence of presence is present. Thank you, by the way, for giving me an opening to construct that truly Asmoic monstrosity of a sentence.

So, to unpack, you say "I have a motorcycle." There is no motorcycle in your garage, you have not been seen driving one, your money transfers do not suggest that you bought one and none is currently registered in your name. There is no evidence that you have a motorcycle - therefore, it is a safe bet that you do not, even if you claim the opposite. You may believe that you have one, but then reality may quite simply beg to differ.

[Tank]

Very prescient thoughts.

[Asmodean]

Another aspect of it is, of course, the quality of evidence of presence.

for instance, I have a car. here is the evidence;


Yeah... not so much though. While the make and model may be correct, that there is not my car. For one, mine is black. For two, I am actually the legal owner of mine, which is easily verifiable by those who know my name and have a tenner for a vehicle ownership information service.

So, at the very best, my "evidence" is the evidence of something other than my claim.

In any case, that is how absence of evidence can be the evidence of absence. If it doesn't matter to you either way, you may simply choose to believe me when I post a picture of a white station wagon as the evidence of car ownership. If, however, you are so inclined, you can use evidence to confirm my claim - or the lack of evidence to refute it. Say, I agreed to drive you somewhere important tomorrow. And by that, I mean literal I agreed to drive literal you. We are not personally acquainted, and so if you were of a distrustful mindset, you may have wanted to verify that I indeed have the tool for that job - and if you could not, you would be correct to assume that I do not.

[Icarus]

 You are showing me a white car to prove (falsely) that you have a car. The religious have no white car to show me, falsely or otherwise.  They have no evidence of any kind to show me. The only thing they have is "faith" which is something that I cannot see or touch. Well I take that back. They can show me their bible.

They will expect me to believe that their bible is a book of instructions that was written by God himself and is therefore not contestable. Their evidence, the bible, is in their mind sufficient to direct their lives, and insist that it directs mine, "as God has commanded"...................

 

[Icarus]

I have no illusions about myself being the smartest guy on the block. I implied above that we Americans are not among the brightest of societies..

Let us pray.

[Asmodean]

You are showing me a white car to prove (falsely) that you have a car. The religious have no white car to show me, falsely or otherwise.  They have no evidence of any kind to show me. The only thing they have is "faith" which is something that I cannot see or touch. Well I take that back. They can show me their bible.

That is of course correct - I am trying to steel-man their "common argument" and regard what they provide as some sort of evidence - though arguing that it may be the evidence of something other than what they claim.

In my example, I'm addressing things like "miracles," "answered" prayers, personal experiences and so forth. To put it this way, you show me a CT scan with evidence of a tumor and then one without and claim a miracle. That is about the quality of my not-my-car.

[Icarus]

^ Your point of view respectfully Acknowledged.

[billy rubin]

absence of evidence is just absence of evidence.

the lack of evidence doesnt prove anything.

[Asmodean]

Practically though, it does.

Itself. It proves precisely itself.

[billy rubin]

nah

finding nothing merely proves that nothing was found.

you cannot make a positive claim to knowledge when all you have done is not observed anything.

[Asmodean]

finding nothing merely proves that nothing was found.

Precisely what I said.

you cannot make a positive claim to knowledge when all you have done is not observed anything.

Practically (and somewhat situationally) though, you can.

Probably the most obvious example is how absence of evidence of a crime or associated with an accusation is used to determine absence of guilt. You can absolutely claim to know that someone is, in this specific case, legally innocent of a crime if the evidence presented at trial was either evidence of something else (self-defence rather than murder, for example) or was absent - at least "sufficiently so."

Again, I use the word "practically" because in many everyday situations, the "cosmic truth" is not relevant. I propose that matters of faith fall under that umbrella, ironic though it might be.

[The Magic Pudding..]

nah

finding nothing merely proves that nothing was found.

you cannot make a positive claim to knowledge when all you have done is not observed anything.

But I haven't not observed anything, I've observed nothing over and over.
Your mind is so open your brain has fallen out crap has become tedious.
For me

[billy rubin]

I've observed nothing over and over.

you said it, pudding.

[zorkan]

If you keep building up anecdotes from different sources then sooner or later it will be interpreted as evidence, but that's all.
Like the skies above are teeming with aliens, a modern interpretation of the gods.
In reality there is no certain evidence for anything.
"Events don't happen", a statement by Hermann Weyl.