Is lack of evidence, evidence within itself?

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

Rich Stearns had evidence.

@Dale

Rich Stearns did not want or ask for what he was compelled to believe and act upon.

[Vinnie]

In New Testaments studies sometimes arguments from silence are probative and sometimes they are not. Raymond Brown writes: “The NT writers certainly knew more of the Christian tradition than they were able or chose to convey in their writings; John 21:25 is specific about that. Therefore we should maintain a certain distrust of negative arguments from silence, as if the failure to write meant the failure to know. . . On the level of the literal sense, exegesis that embraces what the evangelists did not actually convey in writing becomes very speculative.” (Intro NT pg 38-39 )

Brown also cites the eucharist in Paul as a classic example. Had conflict not arisen over the meal in Corinth (1Cor 11:23-26), Paul would not have needed to address the issue and this might lead some modern day exegetes to think that, given how extensive his corpus is, without mentioning the Eucharist, his churches didn’t practice it!

With that being said, if you can show it likely that something would be mentioned and is not we can form the judgment it didn’t happen. For example, if a terrorist set off a bomb killing 1,000 people in New York city yesterday, it would be worldwide news almost everywhere. So if someone claimed this happened and I search all over the internet and official news outlets and they are completely silent on this event, I do believe I am completely justified in unequivocally rejecting the claim being made. I would go so far as to say the silence is actually insurmountable evidence this did not happen.

Most of the time it is not this clear. Josephus not mentioning the slaughter of the infants by Herod during Jesus’s birth does lean against historicity but it is possible Josephus simply overlooked it. When you couple that with the event clearly as part of a literary parallels between Jesus and Israel/Moses in the Hebrew scriptures, the claim against historicity becomes even stronger still. Then when you add in Luke’s contradictory infancy narrative we are starting to find a coffin for our nail. But the silence is not definitive in itself. It would just lead some historians to a probability judgment that leans against historicity.

Vinnie

[jpm (Phil McCurdy)]

I appreciate the discussion about theology, philosophy and such, but find I am a more concrete thinker when looking at the title question, and in the concrete world, I think the answer is, it depends. If something would be certain to leave evidence, then lack of evidence. Indeed is evidence that that something does not exist. A global flood in the recent past would leave a tremendous amount of evidence. That there is none, is an excellent argument that it did not occur. On the other hand, if something is unlikely to leave evidence, then lack of evidence means little or nothing. Intelligent alien life could well exist, even though we have no evidence, and given the size of the universe and the constraints of physics, we are unlikely to ever have anything evidence of such. I suppose we could look at other less concrete things the same way as well. If my wife loves me, it is likely I will see evidence of that love in her actions towards me, and if I did not, perhaps I would be justified in concluding that she did not.

[mitchellmckain (Scientist and Christian)]

Is lack of evidence, evidence within itself?

It can be. Mostly not. But it can be. For it to be so you MUST establish that evidence is to be expected. But evidence can be rather rare and it is demonstrable that people can know things even when they haven’t any evidence at all. Doesn’t mean what they know isn’t true. At most, it only means that they do not have any basis for a reasonable expectation that others should agree that it is the case.

Simple example? Someone says something to you with nobody else to hear and no recording device there. You know they said it. But you can’t prove it and you have no evidence to show they said any such thing. And this is the case with most of the things people say.

@Trippy_Elixir

Could absence of evidence indicate that said evidence does not exist?

LOL…

Obviously not.

Does absence of evidence for the existence of life elsewhere in the universe be evidence that it does not exist? Not even close. Why? Because you cannot establish that such evidence is to be expected.

Does the absence of evidence such as no fossils for a transition stage between two species mean that no such transition existed? No. Fossils are rare events and the fastest evolutionary developments can logically be expected in small populations on the brink of extinction where single mutations will have the maximum effect on the gene pool.

Is it reasonable to believe according to what you have seen for yourself? Obviously. But how do see that something does not exist? There are over 350,000 species of beetles. How many of these have you actually seen? 100? What you haven’t seen is the vast majority of of what is real. Therefore making the limits of your own experience the limit of reality itself is an extremely unreasonable thing to do, don’t you think?

What you can do, is accept limits upon what is reasonable to believe according to what you have seen. With the beetles, for example, you can be pretty sure that all 350,000 species are not in your house at this moment. (A new study shows that the average home has about 100 types of insect in it.)

So even if it isn’t reasonable to make your own lack of experience with UFOs, psychics, fairies, ghosts, and such to mean they do not exist, you can make similar sorts of conclusions based on what you haven’t seen.

So what about God? For one thing, I think we can conclude that if He does exist then making people believe He exists isn’t one of His highest priorities.

[William_Grady (Bill Grady)]

Happy New Year All

Regarding the lack of evidence as being evidence within itself, I like Christie’s comment, “If your premises are true, and your entailments are done correctly, your logical conclusions are proven. But there are warranted conclusions (that can’t be “proven”) because they are about justifiable inferences.” The “warranted conclusions that can’t be proven” stick in my mind as a form of evidence.

I have been mulling over a statement for several weeks concerning some issues of faith like:

1. God’s self-control when dealing with us in our sinful frailty.
2. His restraint to allow our “free will” without intimidation. (ie. Isaiah being “undone”)
3. His continuing involvement with us (Holy Spirit) and His creation (evolution, development.)
4. His being in ultimate “control.”

The statement is, “God acts anonymously with us so we can live autonomously before Him.”

In the context of “warranted conclusions that can’t be proven,” I think the statement offers evidence to God’s low profile way of dealing with us lovingly, warts and all. He gave us his Word and Son and told us to follow His example. As a result, we have “free will” without intimidation or compulsion to autonomously be obedient with the help of the Holy Spirit. Evolution operates under His watch care by the guidelines placed in Nature just as the ultimate control of human events works to serve His purposes.

As mitchellmckain said above, “So what about God? For one thing, I think we can conclude that if He does exist, then making people believe He exists isn’t one of His highest priorities.”

The beauty of God’s low-profile way of working at the spiritual and molecular level is that it allows us to be autonomous in the “here and now.” Yet, at the same time, He remains in constant control of all creation as the “Alpha and Omega,” beginning and the end, and by Him, all things consist.