Big fan of Carl Sagan, he was like a father figure to me, I’m partially molded by him.
That said, something he used to say all the time really baffled me, still does:
“Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”
He said this when talking about aliens.
However: Sagan was a famous non believer.
How does this aphorism reconcile with the existence or non existence of a god?
If “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” does that apply to a god as well?
Is there a god even though there is no evidence of him/her/it?
In: 95
It does, and that is where belief comes in. Nobody can prove that God exists, nor can they prove God does not exist. This leaves everyone with their beliefs, people either believe they do, believe they don’t, or the often misunderstood third stance of don’t know, can’t know so don’t spend time thinking or worrying about it.
“Believers” feel (right or wrong) they have experienced things and seen things that support that a God exists. “Non-Believers” feel (right or wrong) they have not seen or experienced things that support the idea of a Deity.
It does, and that is where belief comes in. Nobody can prove that God exists, nor can they prove God does not exist. This leaves everyone with their beliefs, people either believe they do, believe they don’t, or the often misunderstood third stance of don’t know, can’t know so don’t spend time thinking or worrying about it.
“Believers” feel (right or wrong) they have experienced things and seen things that support that a God exists. “Non-Believers” feel (right or wrong) they have not seen or experienced things that support the idea of a Deity.
An even simpler way to explain this principle, I think, is explaining “Onus Probandi” or “burden of truth” – this holds that any assertion is an argument for the truth of that assertion, and all assertions require proof. The “Onus probandi” or “Burden of Proof” is on the person making the assertion. This is considered true for *all* assertions in philosophical discourse.
So: “There are definitely aliens” requires a proof, but so does “There are definitely no aliens” just as “There is a deity” requires a proof, but so does: “There is definitely no deity”
As it stands, these two assertions are equally difficult to provide proof for, since “I cant find a way to measure a thing” isn’t any proof that the thing isn’t present.
The statement that ‘absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” goes hand in hand with “extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.”
I can claim that unicorns exist. I cannot in fairness say that they must exist because nobody can prove they don’t. It is incumbent on me to prove my assertion.
The statement that ‘absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” goes hand in hand with “extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.”
I can claim that unicorns exist. I cannot in fairness say that they must exist because nobody can prove they don’t. It is incumbent on me to prove my assertion.
I want to mention the teapot but I can’t remember who’s it is. Somebody add it so OP can google/wiki.
The statement that ‘absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” goes hand in hand with “extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.”
I can claim that unicorns exist. I cannot in fairness say that they must exist because nobody can prove they don’t. It is incumbent on me to prove my assertion.
I like to use the analogy of a fishing net to tackle your point about why we might apply this principle to not write off the possibility of aliens while still writing off the possibility of a god.
You can imagine our understanding and observation of the universe being like a fishing net, where it works at catching fish of a certain size, but fish that are too small for the net will slip right through.
The concept of a god seems like a big fish that our net would definitely catch if one existed, while aliens are like tiny plankton that can easily slip through our net.
So, for a big fish, like a god, the absence of evidence is evidence of absence in a way that it isn’t for aliens.
I like to use the analogy of a fishing net to tackle your point about why we might apply this principle to not write off the possibility of aliens while still writing off the possibility of a god.
You can imagine our understanding and observation of the universe being like a fishing net, where it works at catching fish of a certain size, but fish that are too small for the net will slip right through.
The concept of a god seems like a big fish that our net would definitely catch if one existed, while aliens are like tiny plankton that can easily slip through our net.
So, for a big fish, like a god, the absence of evidence is evidence of absence in a way that it isn’t for aliens.
I like to use the analogy of a fishing net to tackle your point about why we might apply this principle to not write off the possibility of aliens while still writing off the possibility of a god.
You can imagine our understanding and observation of the universe being like a fishing net, where it works at catching fish of a certain size, but fish that are too small for the net will slip right through.
The concept of a god seems like a big fish that our net would definitely catch if one existed, while aliens are like tiny plankton that can easily slip through our net.
So, for a big fish, like a god, the absence of evidence is evidence of absence in a way that it isn’t for aliens.
Latest Answers