Can a lack of evidence be considered proof?

[ignoramus]

If it's hot, sunny and dry outside, will anyone question that it's not cold, wet and raining?

If you do not have any hands, is that not proof that you didn't choke your neighbour to death?

If I love eating steak, is that not proof that I'm not a vegetarian?

If there is no trace of our sentient creator anywhere in the universe, does that not prove that he doesn't exist?

Theists, you don't have to be captain Obvious. Just use a tiny bit of common sense and trust your instincts.

Realise that wishing something to be real is nice but won't actually make it real.
Not even your God had the power to poof himself into existence....sorry...have a great day!

[Esquilax]

Absence of evidence is not necessarily, in all cases, evidence of absence, but it is exactly what one would expect in a world in which the thing without evidence doesn't exist. In any case, it's sufficient to disregard the claim that the thing without evidence does exist, which is all we really need to do.

Unless, of course, you've got a prior conviction that the thing must exist, evidence or no: then you get the wriggling you get for god. But if the best theists can give us is this sort of hard lean into the idea that future discoveries may enable us to detect their god in future, it's an implicit acknowledgement that they have nothing right now.

[Gawdzilla]

Absence is evidence of absence.

[Heatheness]

Lack of evidence can be evidence but no, not proof. Evidence is not always proof, sometimes it's simply a layer of evidence that still needs more evidence to support a conclusion or empirical proof.

I don't worry about any proof of no gods because until someone can show me enough evidence to even make it a consideration, I don't. I don't need proof to know that smorkenblats are imaginary, I don't need proof to know gods are too.

[Minimalist]

Absence is evidence of absence.

The absence of evidence for a particular claim is evidence that the claim is false.  The conclusion can be overturned if subsequently evidence of the claim is uncovered.

Kenneth Kitchen's mantra is frequently misapplied by jesus freaks when, for example, archaeologists state that there is no evidence of a major city during the 10th century in what is now known as "Jerusalem."  The nut jobs insist that we have to keep looking for their version of Shangri-La but what archaeology has found at 10th century levels is evidence of a shitty little one-horse village.

Thus what they are claiming is that there is absence of their evidence which is a whole other kettle of fish.

[ignoramus]

Haha,, fuck, this is gonna escalate fast, I can see it!

"We have evidence of a lack of evidence!" Therefore coverup! Checkmate!

[Gemini]

If there is no trace of our sentient creator anywhere in the universe, does that not prove that he doesn't exist?

This.

Yeah, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. So long as the evidence is for a weakly observable hypothesis. But the kind of theism that people care about is the kind that we would be obliged to believe, if it were true. 

That kind of theism definitely isn't true.

[TheRealJoeFish]

I mean, in this sense: if one can logically establish the truth of the proposition "IF X is true, there should be a whole bunch of Y," than an absence of Y is evidence of the falsity of X.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

What Esquilax said. If you look and look and look and don't find the thing you're looking for, and don't even find compelling reasons to keep looking, the safe bet is that the thing you're looking for simply isn't there. That isn't to say that it won't ever be found, but if you keep looking in the same shoebox for the same rhinoceros, you're playing a mug's game.

Boru

[robvalue]

I would say that absence of evidence is evidence of absence; but how strong that evidence is depends on the individual case. It's certainly a factor to consider. But it's not necessarily sufficient evidence, or even strong evidence, which is what I think people generally mean by the rule of thumb.

I think absence of evidence could be considered proof if a statement is very specific:

"I have a [regular] baseball in my right hand."

I look in the person's hand. They have no baseball in it.

I'd say I've proved that claim false via lack of evidence. I suppose you could say I have positive evidence that they don't have it in their hand, because if they did, I'd be able to see it. To state otherwise is to refer to the limits of my senses and such and retreat into solipsism. Which you can do, if you want.