View Poll Results: Is lack of physical evidence = to evidence against?
- 7. You may not vote on this poll
10-01-2005, 07:32 PM #1
lack of evidence = evidence against?
I do not think lack of evidence = evidence against. It simply means no physical evidence has been found. Can you give me an of any instance when lack of evidence proved someone guilty?
10-01-2005, 08:19 PM #2
Try this example: In a court of law, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution. It would be absurd for the prosecution to arbitrarily decide to prosecute someone, and tell them to prove that they didn't do it, without having any evidence that they did. Since we're using god as an example, imagine the existence of god put on trial. The people who believe in God are the prosecution, since they are the ones who make the claim. They have to back up that claim before it can even go to trial. Since there is no solid eveidence that god exists, it never goes to trial. No case for god = no trial. Innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around.
10-01-2005, 10:20 PM #3Originally Posted by ginkobulloba
The ressurection would stand up in any court of law.
10-01-2005, 10:59 PM #4Originally Posted by ginkobulloba
10-01-2005, 11:00 PM #5
oops, i accidently hit yes.. so disregard and add one to no. my bad.
10-01-2005, 11:08 PM #6
They are not equal, but in some cases like evolution, for instance, it is obvious that lack of physical evidence serves as evidence against.
10-02-2005, 05:02 AM #7
Lack of evidence, in certain situations, can most definitely be evidence against! If someone can prove (i.e. they lack evidence) of where they were when a crime was committed then that is evidence against them.
Unless there were eye witnesses to a crime it is very hard to be 99% sure that a person is guilty/wrong. Even then, you can't be 100% sure. Which is why there should be no such thing as atheists. They should all be agnostic.
10-02-2005, 06:28 AM #8Originally Posted by books555
10-02-2005, 02:31 PM #9
I will go into it in a little bit. Gotta go.
10-02-2005, 03:18 PM #10
Is lack of physical evidence = to evidence against?
Well, if you're going to try to sell medicine in the USA, if you don't have evidence to back up your claims, you're not gonna get a license to sell your wares.
If a guy tells me he can see invisible beings, if he can't provide evidence, I'm gonna write him off as a nut.
If someone tells me that God speaks to him every day, well, I'll recall all those nuts I saw on a visit to Wichita Falls mental hospital who claimed the same thing, and assume he belongs there. Of course, unless he provides evidence.
While lack of physical evidence isn't necessicarily = evidence against, simply making a claim doesn't provide any reason to assume that what is stated corresponds with reality.
10-02-2005, 06:54 PM #11
yea, but what if he can see invis beings tock? You can write him off as a nut, but that doesnt mean that he is. what if this guy who can see invis beings has a reputation of being psychic and being true about it proven more than once? Would that make a difference in whether you believe him more or do you write him off as a nut no matter what because he cant make you see invis beings?
10-02-2005, 08:50 PM #12Originally Posted by max2extreme
And . . . should a psychic ever turn up that has a significantly better than chance record of prognostication, let me know. I don't think it's ever happened--not without skulduggery and deceit.
10-02-2005, 10:52 PM #13
didnt answer the question.
10-03-2005, 12:56 PM #14
What the hell?
So if the IRS cannot find evidence that you cheated on your taxes... does that actually mean you did and were too smart to get caught or perhaps you never did.....
10-03-2005, 01:40 PM #15Originally Posted by Cylon
10-03-2005, 01:42 PM #16Originally Posted by books555
10-03-2005, 02:35 PM #17
Lack of of evidence implies that there is some evidence to support an arguement, just not a lot. So to say lack of evidence is equal to evidence against an arguement would be contradictory. That is assuming there is some evidence, and that evidence is valid.
10-03-2005, 06:43 PM #18
Appeal to a Lack of Evidence (Argumentum Ad Ignorantium, literally "Argument from Ignorance"): Appealing to a lack of information to prove a point, or arguing that, since the opposition cannot disprove a claim, the opposite stance must be true. An example of such an argument is the assertion that ghosts must exist because no one has been able to prove that they do not exist. Logicians know this is a logical fallacy because no competing argument has yet revealed itself.
10-03-2005, 08:39 PM #19Originally Posted by BigJames
Thanks bro, its nice to here something complimentory against all the animosity.
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)