== == New archaeological and other types of discoveries are being made all the time that support the truth of The Bible. The phrase you quote simply means that just because we can't presently prove something from the Bible with physical evidence, it doesn't mean that such evidence does not exist, it may simply mean that we have not yet discovered it. This term is used as a counter-argument to many who try to argue illogically that because something has not been discovered apart from its mention in the Bible it therefore is not true. This is stated in summary form as 'absence of evidence is evidence of absence.' The assumption behind this is that the Bible is a lot of 'campfire tales' and 'Mythology' and where it tells of people they are far removed from the events and so cannot know of what they speak with any accuracy.
However, there now have been many archaeological discoveries made which verify historical, lifestyle and other details from the Biblical records. The fact that these had not yet been discovered did not make the Bible any more or less true than it was before. All that can be logically concluded when there is no extra-biblical evidence yet available is that there is no extra-biblical evidence yet available on a particular subject.
To use an illustration from everyday life may help clarify the issue further and demonstrate how the argument when used in its reverse form, is most illogical. The assertion 'absence of evidence is evidence of absence' cannot be applied to any unknown discovery or else the following propositions would be true:
Since William Herschel discovered Uranus in 1781 it did not exist until then because evidence of its existence was absent.
Since Neptune was not discovered until September 23rd 1846 by Galle and Arrest it did not exist until then, since there was no real evidence.
Pluto didn't exist until 1930 when it was discovered by Clyde W. Tombaugh, since there was no evidence of its existence.
The same kind of assertions have been made and continue to be made against historical and other Biblical details. There continue to be discoveries made which confirm the accuracy of the Biblical record. The evidence was always there, it simply had not come to light. "Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence" means it's not a fact until proven otherwise. The above answer would certainly be a correct proposition if there is clarity given to the phrase 'it's not a fact.' If this means it's not a fact that the Bible has been proven wrong simply due to a lack of evidence in certain areas then this would be a true and correct proposition. If it means that it's not a fact that the Bible has been proven true simply because there is no evidence in a particular area then the proposition is logically flawed for reasons given above.
Firstly, the Bible has been verified in numerous areas in which not that many years age it was thought to be in error. Thus, even though the evidence was relatively recently discovered the Bible was correct even without the evidence. The evidence just confirmed what was already correct.
In addition, if evidence is required for everything then we may well not believe that man landed on the moon (indeed some think it was a big hoax) since we didn't see it directly. We take it 'on faith' to a certain degree because there is enough evidence. It is not unreasonable to take some things from the Bible 'on faith' without direct evidence since the writers have proven themselves reliable elsewhere. On the other hand, were the same ultra-skepticism to be applied to many other ancient writings, we would have very little of antiquity left as the Bible has much more and better 'evidence.'
== == == ==
It is a valid criticism of argumentation that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just because we do not know that something exists does not mean that it really does not. Of course, this cuts both ways, and apologetics are at least as guilty of referring to alleged absence of evidence to imply that something does not exist or is not true. For the early Jews, the absence of evidence that Jesus was the anticipated Messiah would have been reason enough to reject the claim. In this case, it was appropriate for the Christian Church to provide actual evidence that he was the Messiah, and for many Jews the Church failed that test. In other cases, the absence of evidence can be a supporting argument where evidence ought to exist. For example, the absence of evidence that Paul knew Jesus to have lived in the recent past, does not prove that Jesus was not a real person of the first century. However, when combined with Paul's lack of interest in visiting the birthplace of Jesus and the further lack of evidence that he ever visited Calvary or the tomb, it makes a persuasive case for further investigation. Fortunately, secular scholars can provide real evidence in support of their views and do not rely on absence of evidence.
In the absence of credible evidence, the judge dropped the case. Due to the absence of the teacher, a substitute was called.
Believing something in the absence of evidence is paradoxical. The paradox can be resolved by realizing that people who believe something in the absence of evidence are simply idiots, and there is no validity to such a belief.
A:That is correct: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The philosopher, Bertrand Russell wrote that if he claimed that a perfectly formed teapot were orbiting the sun in the asteroid belt, it would be nonsense for him to expect others not to doubt him just because they could not prove him wrong. Russell was illustrating that there was no evidence for the tepot, but reasonable people would conclude that it does not exist. His teapot is still referred to in discussions concerning the existence, or otherwise, of God.
A favourite pair of quotes. "If I hadn't been looking for it, I never would have seen it." "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
It is evidence that business production is near full capacity and there is little unemployment.
How to respond to an Unauthorized Absence from Work memo depends on the circumstances of your absence. If you believe your absence was authorized, you should draft a potential support with your viewpoint, supported by any evidence you have.
In the absence of further evidence, the case was dropped. Due to the absence of Mrs. Jackson, we'll need a substitute teacher for room 12.
________ is defined as the tendency to doubt the validity of claims in the absence of evidenceAnswer this question…
It would be reasonable to assume that they don't, given that the evidence for actual UFOs are, to put it mildly, lacking. Although the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, the only rational conclusion we can draw is that UFOs don't exist, and thus could not directly affect a community.
A long dry period caused by the absence of rain is called a drought. Droughts are very bad for supporting life for plants and animals.
an absence of fossil evidence
One can only guess at the answer because without any evidence all is merely speculation and acceptance of things in the absence of any proof.
Yes. If there is compelling evidence, even in the absence of a witness, you can be convicted of a crime. Also, if there is a proven motive in addition to the evidence, that will add to the probabibility of a conviction.
Flat line on the EEG (in combination with absence of heartbeat and respiration).
An argument from silence is an argument based on the absence of something being mentioned in documents as evidence.
This is a phrase attributed to British astrophysicist Martin Rees, which is cited from a proceedings of the Life Beyond Earth & The Mind of Man symposium, 1972, jointly sponsored by Boston University and NASA. It is also mentioned by astrophysicist Carl Sagan in his book The Demon-Haunted World, 1995.The statement is made as an endorsement of healthy skepticism, but it often taken out of context to suit religious-based (i.e. theistic) arguments for god's existence. However, as the typical objection to this argument asserts, just because a proposition cannot be conclusively proven false does not, therefore, mean it is true. The point here is that the concepts of evidence and proof are conflated.Absence of evidence is absence of evidence, but it is not proof of absence. That is, proofs are determinate and definitive. Evidence is merely something that supports or denies the potential validity of an argument.
Absance is spelled absence. Heat is a noun used to describe the higher temperature applied or in relation to another something. It isn't really ever absent... FOR EXAMPLE: 32F could be hot compared to dry ice.
an absence of dinosaur fossils in Paleocene Bedrock.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The assertion of a lack of evidence does not prove anything, nor does putting the relevant people in the incorrect time frame of reference. History channel is deceptive and anti-Biblical for failing to point out these biases.Short : Possibly true. What does it prove:nothing.
They ARE native to America. Every group migrated from Africa, but the first ones to the area become native to that area._______________________________________The answer to the question: Why are Native Americans NOT native to America is: Because they immigrated from Asia. Like all American's they traveled to North America from elsewhere.You cannot prove a negative, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Without evidence, and or theory to the contrary it is assumed that the facts supporting that "Native Americans" are native to America is true. Native Americans have proof of at least 10,000 years of existence in the same place as they are now. Human history dates back approximately 8,000 years, as a measure of reference.
The absence of any reinforcement following a behavior. Usually extinction occurs in situations where positive reinforcement was formerly applied.
no. Chlorophyll is the absence of what is sometimes known as 'Quadphlapic light', only because of it's absinity to water. Quadphlapic light has no evidence to having quadrotic relations, although further tests are needed to prove this theory. thus, until proven otherwise, Chlorophyll is not the absence of green light.
False. According to the Biblical narrative, Moses led the Israelites across the Sea of Reeds, and Joshua later led them across the Jordan River.According to archaeologists, there is no evidence to suggest that Joshua lived at all. (Though absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.)