"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

[Minimalist]

However if I just sit in my own house and ponder whether or not the cat exists, prior to looking for it, my absence of evidence in that case is not evidence of absence.

That is not "evidence" at all, Apo. That's being too lazy to go look. Even Kitchen wasn't suggesting that. The context of Kitchen's comment was

A phrase often used by Kitchen is "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" meaning that the lack of higher dated monuments or inscriptions for a certain Pharaoh's reign does not exclude the possibility that this ruler enjoyed a longer reign than is generally assumed.

When xtians try to stretch the idea to cover the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever of any mass of "Hebrew slaves" in Egypt they run into the fact that 200 years of archaeological excavation has failed to detect them.

The only thing that is missing is "evidence" of bible bullshit. Egyptologists have a fairly solid grasp of ancient Egyptian history and there are no "Hebrews" in it. In fact, the matter is so convincingly closed about Egyptologists that no one is even looking for it anymore.

Oddly, it was Israeli scholars who excavated in Sinai after the Six Day War who put the nail in the coffin. The Exodus never happened.

[Angrboda]

However if I just sit in my own house and ponder whether or not the cat exists, prior to looking for it, my absence of evidence in that case is not evidence of absence.

That is not "evidence" at all, Apo. That's being too lazy to go look. Even Kitchen wasn't suggesting that. The context of Kitchen's comment was

I wasn't referencing Kitchen at all so much as clarifying the difference between no evidence, which indicates nothing, and negative evidence, which is at least something.

The fact is that his slogan has become a banner for all sorts of pseudo-history and pseudo-science, particularly parapsychology where the epistemology is a bit more nuanced than the failure of the Exodus story. We know when we've peeked in the right Tels in looking for the Jews. It's not even clear that there is an analogue for parapsychology.

[Norfolk And Chance]

Well of course you can't "tell the difference" between an undetectable god and a non-existent god. If you could, that would make him detectable.

Yep, and maybe "real".

[Minimalist]

If I assert that there is a medieval castle on the site of modern Pittsburgh and then dig down to 8th century levels and find nothing then I have a problem with my assertion. The lack of evidence cannot be construed as somehow supporting the assertion which is the way jesus freaks try to twist Kitchen's otherwise fairly pointless pronouncement.

[Norfolk And Chance]

Well of course you can't "tell the difference" between an undetectable god and a non-existent god.

Correct! Which was wholly my point.

---

Do all the things you haven't personally examined therefore have evidence against their existence because of your ignorance?

First of all I'm not ignorant, and secondly no I don't have to personally examine something for it to be true. I've never seen a blue whale but I know they are true because they have been seen, captured etc etc.

If someone tells me that "hey, there's blue whales in the Pacific" I'd be inclined to believe them because it's not an extraordinary claim, and other people have put forward good evidence for their existence which has been documented.

If somebody tells me that there is a martian magic carpet doing ferry trips between the moon and earth, and by the way it's an invisible, undectable, martian magic carpet, and you have to have faith to get a trip on it - then I'm going to say "fuck off you crazy fucker", ie produce some evidence. The more extraordinary the claim is, the more extraordinary is the evidence needed. Certainly in this instance, if nobody can provide evidence, then absence of evidence IS evidence of absence.