How many times have we heard this one?
109. ARGUMENT FROM LACK OF DISPROOF, a.k.a. ARGUMENT FROM SHIFTED BURDEN OF PROOF
(1) You can’t prove God doesn’t exist!
(2) Therefore, God exists.
(source)
Argument from Disproof
October 28, 2009 By 34 Comments
Way, way too many times. It feels like they’re saying “Science doesn’t have all the answers, but religion says it does; I’m throwin’ in with religion!”
I guess they see science as being in the “wrong” because it admits that it doesn’t know all the answers.
I think it’s more like the moment of disillusionment when you realize your parents aren’t superheros/gods really messed these people up. Most of us learn to love our parents more for being flawed humans like us, these people invent a father figure that is never wrong and has no flaws, and just cannot give that up.
One of my favorite responses is:
(1) You can’t prove that you exist.
(2) Therefore, you do not exist.
I have yet to have anyone respond to that, because it points out the flaw in their logic. (Plus it moves them into the realm of philosophy)
Why not just say
(1) You can’t prove God exists
(2) Therefore God doesn’t exist
I think that would be more effective b/c you are not physically standing in front of God, but you are standing in front of the other person, who therefore exists on the same level as you do.
It’s still appealing to ignorance though.
I think the best approach might be to take the Null hypothesis. Assume God doesn’t exist (hypothetically) and then try to prove yourself wrong.
That argument is a close relative of the “Appeal to Ignorance”.
To be fair though — just because they can’t prove that s/he/they DOES exist doesn’t mean s/he/they DOESN’T. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
That said — I disagree with those that would say it takes faith to NOT believe in God. We are all atheists by default — the naked assertion of the existence of the supernatural does not automatically force people unwilling to make that assertion to maintain their position solely on faith.
ie. I don’t believe in fairies or ghosts either — but it’s not on “faith” that I don’t believe in them.
It seems that “confidence” is often conflated with “faith” as well…
“Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. ”
You know, people LIKE that phrase, because it’s a reversable-sweater phrase, like “Ask not what your country can do for you…”
It sounds nice coming off the tongue. And Carl Sagan said it.
But it’s not actually true.
Absence of evidence IS evidence of absence.
In fact, it’s often the best evidence we have that something doesn’t exist.
It’s not PROOF of absence, but it IS evidence.
The best evidence we have of the non-existence of unicorns, is the fact that there is no evidence for them.
Just because a little phrase kind of rhymes doesn’t mean its true.
Yes, Carl Sagan was totally awesome, but he really really wanted there to be life on Mars; his expectation that there should be caused some unscientific behavior.
Maybe, but Sagan never claimed there was any actual evidence of life on Mars, only that there may be, and it may even be likely, and even if it is very unlikely, it is certainly worth looking. It’s hard to disagree with that.
That said, I totally agree that absence of evidence can indeed be evidence of absence in cases where enough study has been done such that one would expect to have found evidence if the claim were true. Of course, in some cases, we don’t have evidence simply because we haven’t looked enough; that is NOT evidence of absence.
So the phrase should be, “Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence.”
also, file this one under “circular arguments.”
Ugh, my dad used this in an argument with me, as he was yelling about my lack of faith. I had just gotten back from an atheist meetup group, and he had just gotten back from church, and I made some snide remark about “yeah our group is like church, but without the irrational supernaturalism” and he immediately starts going off about having a support group in case your wife dies or you lose your job, and YOU CAN’T PROVE GOD DOESN’T EXIST was the main thrust of his argument. And I was like, so what, you can’t disprove fairies! Then he resorted to the moral argument, which I said makes me upset, because if I’m right and there is no god, then religious people everywhere will start murdering people left and right. Terrible, terrible arguments.
because if I’m right and there is no god, then religious people everywhere will start murdering people left and right
They seem to be doing well on the murdering people front as is although I guess for many of these infidels don’t count as people.
Isnt’ that kind of like saying “technically, I’m still a virgin”?
You can’t prove I’m not a virgin, therefore I am.
My agnostic rectum, if I have ever seen a bunch of short circuited logic, I fail to remember it. Based on the writers logic, I can say X is Shiva, X exists, therefore Shiva exists, I can see where he is pointing, but, jeez, what a terrible argument paper.
Daniel,
I don’t if others have this problem, but my feed for your site in Google Reader gives only a few sentences — so I have to click to open your site — which means I don’t read most of your stuff.
Can you fix that, or is it me.
Thanx,
Sabio
Argh reading these comments make my head hurt. When a theist twists the burden of proof argument just informed them how it works by examples. For an example tell them you’re a quintillionaire or invented the internet and then ask them if they believe you. If they don’t ask them why, the reasons they give to why they don’t believe you such as they haven’t seen you pull up in a benz or the way you dress, or if you invented the internet why haven’t they heard your name etc… All the reasons they will list will be they haven’t received any proof from YOU verifying you’re a quintillionaire or invented the internet SINCE YOU CLAIM TO HAVE INVENTED THE INTERNET OR YOU’RE A QUINTILLIONAIRE. Now if they believe you’re a quintillionaire again ask them why but now THEY have to come up with concrete proof verifying you’re a millionaire or the inventor of the internet. Very freaking simple people.
“Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence.”
That’s what Carl Sagan meant, it just doesn’t sound or look nice on a sweater. Or at least that is how I interpreted that phrase. Again you guys complicate issues that need not be complicated. That’s the reason why you’ll never have a Christian listen to your arguments. Complication=confusion, confusion not good. Simple=clarity clarity good.
Very interesting, thanks for posting that. Obviously it seems simple to us, but to someone seriously believing in something imaginary, shifting the burden of proof is something they probably would do all the time in order to justify their beliefs. I’m wondering if you’ve had much luck talking to theists and actually getting them to understand this?
No, unfortunately, I think he meant “absence of evidence for life on Mars is not evidence of absence of life on Mars”, which he didn’t give up on until Viking sent pictures. It was understandably heartbreaking for Sagan to give up on the idea of life on Mars, which was what inspired him to pursue science in the first place. Sagan is totally awesome, one of my heroes, but he was just wrong on this one. In a lot of ways he was very unscientific, but a great “face” for science!
Let’s move this little excuse for logic into the political arena:
Since we haven’t been attacked by Martians or Venusians or Leprechauns, then that is evidence that the Bush-Cheney war on terror has been effective in protecting Amerika from Martians, Venusians, and Leprechauns.
To say that “Absence of evidence IS evidence of absence” is true, you must use the most broadly-inclusive definition of “evidence.” As in “since I have no evidence that Cheney ISN’T a pedophile, that is evidence that he IS a pedophile.”
To quote wikipedia (admittedly not an unassailable souce): “Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion. …” Absence of evidence to the contrary is suggestive of an assertion’s veracity, but in no way does it “determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion. …”
So with that as their argument…..then
1.You cannot prove that Santa does not exist.
Therefore…Santa exists!
2. You cannot prove that the Tooth Fairy does not exist.
Therefore…the Tooth Fairy exists!
3. You cannot prove that the Easter Bunny does not exist.
Therefore…the Easter Bunny does exist!
4. You cannot prove that George H.W. Bush is not a blithering idiot.
Therefore…George H.W.Bush IS a blithering idiot.
Well now….I’m glad we got all that cleared up……
I can sleep nights now…
And how many times have we heard, “You can’t prove that X functionality didn’t arise through evolution.”
The best atheist apologists are using the same arguments as the worst Christian apologists. What does that say?
I’ve never heard it phrased that way. Usually, it’s more like “we have evidence (fossils, evidence of environmental changes) which indicates that X functionality arose through evolution of Y functionality”
Since evolutionists aren’t willing to admit that evolution could be wrong, when they encounter an anomaly they can only assert that an answer simply hasn’t been discovered yet and chide the critics for their lack of imagination and unwillingness to embrace scientific inquiry. Through this question-begging and special pleading they set up a scenario in which evolution cannot be proven to be false. So while evolutionists will never utter something so blunt as “you can’t prove that X didn’t arise through evolution” this is exactly how they craft the debate.
Evolution can easily be proven to be false. I’m sure you have heard of countless ways to do that, but I guess it suits your purposes to pretend otherwise. How about the old example of finding a fossil rabbit in the precambrian?
Disproving evolution would be very easy: all you have to do is find a human skull dated 65 million years ago. Or a cow. A horse. An elephant. Any modern mammal would do. Yet those stubborn fossils insist in confirming different types of animals lived in different periods of time. Despite a thousand chances to be proven wrong, evolution is always confirmed by every new discovery.
@Keith: Since you brought up the subject of who’s willing to admit what, could you give us an example of what kind of evidence would you need to admit creationism is wrong?
Any links to that assertion?
What does that say?
Most likely, that says you’re talking out of your ass.
Americans have an especially hard time with “not knowing” because of our superiority complex. Americans feel entitled to know/have everything. They think scientists should know everything. They think they should know everything. Being correct s unimportant, saying you have it all is the only thing that matters.
Science admitting that it doesn’t have answers will make many Americans dismissed science because religion claims to actually have these answers. The truth isn’t the issue, its the confidence of being ‘correct’ that motivates a lot of people. Insecurity is out of control in this consumerism society we live in and people seek comfort in any place imaginable, and not knowing something is uncomfortable to them. Because of this, they go somewhere that knows all the answers.
If religion has all the answers, then let them explain where the Highs boson is and what is up with the dark matter and dark energy?
I think humanity as a group is just like that – needing to know everything and needing there to be a purpose to everything they do. Whether or not Americans feel this particularly, I can’t say – I haven’t met enough of you.
i agree, heard this many times….i for one, believe in a higher power, but not in an old man with a white beard…and though I cannot prove it, i can’t help believe there is something deeper and something beyond our conscienceness…the idea of religious doctrine and theology i do not care for….
Michael and other fundies can’t prove that Tinkerbell doesn’t exist.
Besides, in case your belief is weak, Peter Pan will vouch for her.