"If you see no evidence for something, then that counts as evidence against it" is not necessarily always true. The fact that we have not found evidence against a claim is not necessarily evidence that the claim is false, because there may be (a) insufficient investigation of the claim, or (b) the claim being unknowable in principle. An assertion that a claim is false because it has not yet been demonstrated to be true is an argument from ignorance if (a) or (b) applies, which is a logical fallacy.
Hence, in the case of a deistic god who initiated the Big Bang and thereafter left the Universe to proceed under the laws of nature, without any subsequent influence from such a god, a lack of evidence for such a god's existence does not count as evidence against its existence, because we have no known method of investigating such a claim. However, in the case of the God of the Bible, lack of evidence does constitute as evidence against such a god, because we can, for instance, investigate prayer thoroughly and find no evidence that prayer has any divine implications, which is evidence against prayer.
Hence, in the case of a deistic god who initiated the Big Bang and thereafter left the Universe to proceed under the laws of nature, without any subsequent influence from such a god, a lack of evidence for such a god's existence does not count as evidence against its existence, because we have no known method of investigating such a claim. However, in the case of the God of the Bible, lack of evidence does constitute as evidence against such a god, because we can, for instance, investigate prayer thoroughly and find no evidence that prayer has any divine implications, which is evidence against prayer.
"Faith is the excuse people give when they have no evidence."
- Matt Dillahunty.
- Matt Dillahunty.
