IS the absence of evidence the evidence of absence?

Question

IS the absence of evidence the evidence of absence?

Answer 1

It seems to be enough to convince reasonable people that there are no leprechauns, faeries, gnomes, elves and unicorns. So I'm going to say yes, it is.

Answer 2

I've said that about evolution for years but I'm glad you brought it up again. :)

Answer 3

Catherine E. gave an answer I agree with 100%, but I wanted to expand a bit on it.

There is often a very basic problem with the way different people construct widely disparate concepts of evidence.  Even in science, one researcher's 'evidence' does not measure up to the standards of all others.  Once you start dealing with questions about omnipotent, unseen beings or forces, I am afraid there is no amount of evidence that will ever convince those who rely on empirical facts to create arguments, and, similarly, no amount of absence which will ever change the minds of believers.  

Although I am a hard scientist, I believe we choose what we want to believe most of the time - and evidence - which always requires interpretation whether empirically constructed or imaginary - does not necessarily help.

Answer 4

Absence doesn't require evidence.  

Answer 5

Frogs.

Answer 6

No, but absence of evidence should be absence of belief...

Answer 7

Yes, it is.  It's not PROOF of absence, but *evidence* of absence, yes.

Answer 8

Theism at its best.

Answer 9

It certainly is.Not PROOF mind you,but the absence of any evidence,despite diligently searching for that evidence,is indeed evidence of absence.That "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence"SOUNDS good,but in reality,it isn't true at all

Answer 10

IS you an idiot?

Answer 11

no

The absence of evidence may simply mean you haven't been looking in the right place or in the right way.

In a religious context, the fact that there is no evidence to prove god exists does not in itself prove that there is no god. What is does mean is that anyone making the assertion that god exists automatically places the burden of proof upon themselves - if someone says god exists then it's up to them to prove it.

However, when the finest minds have searched for over 2,000 years in every conceivable way and still come up without any evidence of god the balance of probability weighs heavily in favour of god's non-existence. I cannot prove the non-existence of god any more than I can prove that there isn't a 30-foot high purple giant with three heads wearing yellow pyjamas living under Mount Everest but I would suggest both are equally implausible.