N
Quote from this article written by physicist Victor Stenger:
Victor Stenger: Absence of Evidence Is Evidence of Absence
"This doesn't bother most believers because they have heard many times that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."However, just repeating a statement over and over again does not make it true. I can think of many cases where absence of evidence provides robust evidence of absence. The key question is whether evidence should exist but does not. Elephants have never been seen roaming Yellowstone National Park. If they were, they would not have escaped notice. No matter how secretive, the presence of such huge animals would have been marked by ample physical signs -- droppings, crushed vegetation, bones of dead elephants. So we can safely conclude from the absence of evidence that elephants are absent from the park."
Victor Stenger: Absence of Evidence Is Evidence of Absence
"This doesn't bother most believers because they have heard many times that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."However, just repeating a statement over and over again does not make it true. I can think of many cases where absence of evidence provides robust evidence of absence. The key question is whether evidence should exist but does not. Elephants have never been seen roaming Yellowstone National Park. If they were, they would not have escaped notice. No matter how secretive, the presence of such huge animals would have been marked by ample physical signs -- droppings, crushed vegetation, bones of dead elephants. So we can safely conclude from the absence of evidence that elephants are absent from the park."
You are correct in asserting that, “repeating a statementover and over again does not make it true.” Yet simply because one repeats sound information does not make ituntrue. In fact, it was Carl Sagan whowas originally quoted as saying “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence,”in his 1980 book, Cosmos. Therefore, itis not merely theologians, Christian apologists, or philosophers who hold tothis truth. Regardless of whethertheologians or scientists reference this quote innumerably, it does not make itany less true, simply because one finds it to be cliché. Yet, the point is not to argue whether or nota statement is cliché, but, instead, to learn if that same statement isfactual. I used Carl Sagan's quotebecause I found it to be grounded in logic.
I would now like to address the analogy you had given – as towhy lack of evidence is sometimes evidence of absence. The analogy you providedis limited, in that, you equate God, who is spirit, to something which isphysical (i.e., an elephant). How can one empirically state there is no God,when acquiring empirical evidence requires one to make observations within thenatural universe? If God is spirit, thenone cannot make physical observations of His existence. This does not, however, imply He [God] doesnot exist. It merely means He isunobservable within the boundaries of the natural universe. Additionally, while there is no presence ofelephants in some locations due to geographical confinement, you attempted tonegate the omnipresence of God. God isnot bound by the confines of the universe; yet, God’s presence transcends eventhe universe which He created. There is,however, sufficient evidence of God’s existence found in His creation itself. Recall briefly, Romans 1:20 (NewInternational Version, 2011): “For since the creation of the world God'sinvisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearlyseen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are withoutexcuse.”
I would like to take this opportunity to invite you toreceive Jesus Christ as your personal savior. Send me a private message, if you would like to know how to do so.
Grace and Peace!