what say you??
Re: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
I can't produce evidence to support your argument :D
Re: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
true , becaz evidence is itself a proof of it
Re: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
well, no one is doubting about THAT. But what about absence of an evidence? doesn't it merely mean that there isn't any PROOF to support an argument or EXISTANCE. This doesn't rule out POSSIBILITY of an existance. :-)
Re: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
Xeno...I agree with you, but cant seem to put in the right words. Basically i think you are saying you can only prove/disprove something when evidence is found for/aganst it. Then what is evidence? Is it scientific, quantified, logical? Can you accept evidence as what I personally felt when I experienced an event? Does evidence only have to be objective?
Are you leading towards the existence of God/Soul by any chance?
Re: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
True! But it is not the evidence of presence as well.
Re: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
Then until proven guilty you can say there is a possibilty there might be a God/angels/jins/all unseen.
For me absense of evidence makes it only a possibility no more no less.
Re: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
mujay bhi ghalti howi thee samajhnay main 
Re: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
Absence of prrof is not a proof of absence.
Re: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
^But is it possibility of absense?
Re: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
I would agree, The absence of evidence is just what it is, i.e. absence of evidence. Now what lefts is only a possibility.
Looking at it in the context of "God of religions", I think we can raise another question, *Can evidence settle something absolutley certainly for all times? *(Thats the way they describe their faith in God)
Re: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
religiously this is abused quite a bit by smiling metaphysical nutjobs. there is no evidence of a flying purple gorilla either.
Re: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
But atleast you must have seen one gorilla to base your assumption on. Likewise after checking out 1000 gorillas you can safely say that based on the so and so study where 1000 gorillas were found to be of so and so texture it can be safely assumed that there are very slim chances that there is a flying purple gorilla.
What was the case study in case of god?
Re: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
^ well thats cause gorillas arent a complete analogy for God, when we conceptualize gorillas we imagine something that can be physically percieved, thus the validity of physical examination of gorillas as basis for regarding purple gorillas as unlikely.
on the other hand we have no such conception of God.
i think its more similar to ether, it wasnt bad science to believe in the existence of ether even though there was never physical evidence for it. it turned out to be wrong since we eventually got physical evidence to the contrary, but the gorilla argument wouldnt have held in that case.