(June 17, 2014 at 12:11 am)Jenny A Wrote:(May 8, 2013 at 2:48 pm)goodnews Wrote: In a nutshell....." ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE IS NOT EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE "
Actually, when a hypothesis implies there will be evidence, lack of evidence is evidence. So, if I theorize gravity, lack of evidence that things fall would be evidence that gravity does not exist.
The god hypothesis when applied to any religion implies there should be evidence. As there isn't evidence, lack is proof that that a particular god exists is proof he doesn't.
God hypothesis that don't imply there will be evidence are irrelevant by definition.
I think its a false analogy to compare evidence of gravity with evidence for the existence of God.
One of the key things you learn when doing empirical research is using the right method that fits the research question/hypothesis - rather than assuming there is one right method for testing all hypotheses.
So it really depends on what you mean by evidence - all the counter arguments I've read on the thread really come down to a prior commitment not to interpret the universe, history or experience in theistic terms.
If you've presupposed that only naturalist explanations of the world are valid - of course you're going to conclude there is no evidence for the existence of God. But to show this assumption is valid you need to present evidence why naturalism is true - otherwise it doesn't prove anything its just begging the question.