Willingham and others acknowledge that lack of evidence doesn't constitute definitive proof of nonexistence.
But
this lack of evidence does not prevent NCTQ from confidently declaring that they know what teacher prep programs should be doing and judging them on that basis.
Lack of evidence doesn't mean something is false.
«
The lack of evidence does not mean that water birds are not responsible for the dispersal,» says Dr. Philipp E. Hirsch from the University of Basel.
News that the police have dropped their inquiry into the Falkirk selection because of
a lack of evidence does not come as a surprise to me.
Also,
lack of evidence DOES NOT equal evidence of a god.
Lack of evidence does not prove a negative.
Not exact matches
Ever when faced with overwhelming
evidence that major changes are needed, most companies are slow to take action and
lack the sense
of urgency required to get things
done.
I don't have a ton
of empirical
evidence for that last point, other than the fact that hedge fund managers get paid a lot, and there is therefore no obvious
lack of incentives to manage a hedge fund.
Dawkins argues that while there appear to be plenty
of individuals that would place themselves as «1» due to the strictness
of religious doctrine against doubt, most atheists
do not consider themselves «7» because atheism arises from a
lack of evidence and
evidence can always change a thinking person's mind.
Non-believers don't believe because
of the utter
lack of any
evidence to support the claim.
You make the claim that there is a god, I say I don't accept your claim due to the
lack of evidence provided... seems to me the one making the claim is the one who needs to provide the
evidence.
I can infer that he
does not exist based on
lack of evidence.
So you make your point just don't pretend that you are above being pigeon holed or committed to a belief due to
lack of evidence.
How
does the
lack of evidence with Noah's Ark, the birth
of Christ, the creation story and so forth actually prove that there is no God who wants us to rely on faith instead
of assured knowledge.
Complete
lack of proof that something exists is
evidence that it
does not exist.
A silly example might be that because we don't see
evidence of aliens on earth, they must have all left because the
lack of alien
evidence proves they were once here but must have left long ago.
How
does the
lack of understanding provide
evidence either way?
I don't have a belief on the situation one way or the other, my grounding in the question
of any God or gods comes from the
lack of evidence for or against.
And yet the intent
of the ceremony, in making the union
of the couple part
of a wider commitment involving family and the community, is often abandoned, as
evidenced by the typical bridal couple's excuse for a
lack of consideration for the wishes and comfort
of relatives and other guests: «Well, it's our wedding, so we get to
do whatever we want.»
I
do agree however, that the stunning
lack of evidence to support a god makes it at least, «fantastically unlikely» that there is one, but I'm fine leaving it at that.
I admire your unflinching courage to consider the
lack of evidence and
do away with your useless faith.
Lacking any
evidence none
of these exist I draw the obvious conclusion that they don't exist.
The claims that God doesn't want to be «readily known» and carefully avoids providing
evidence of his existence were contrived to explain the
lack of evidence.
They just don't believe in their worldview and think they are a little deluded, which is fair considering the extreme
lack of evidence.
While he probably committed manslaughter, the
lack of independent
evidence does mean that he should be acquitted under the American system
of law.
You still fail to address the fact that this «belief» is merely a
lack of belief in your god after examining the
evidence and therefore
does not represent an ideology in and
of itself.
The complete and total
lack of any and all
evidence that something exists is itself very very strong
evidence that it
does not exist.
Once you get through the deception and their crazy no - fact doctrine based on book where it's history has been proven false due to the
lack of DNA and Archeological evidence that does not support the BOOK OF MORMON, I am glad this guy was intelligent enough to leav
of DNA and Archeological
evidence that
does not support the BOOK
OF MORMON, I am glad this guy was intelligent enough to leav
OF MORMON, I am glad this guy was intelligent enough to leave.
Showing that a God
did it would require its own
evidence, not a
lack on behalf
of science.
An agnostic
does not believe in a creator because there is no proof, but they also
do not completely dismiss the idea
of creation due to the same
lack of evidence in denial.
He is FULLY God and FUULY man... second... don't project yourself on me... to you it seems
lack of evidence..
I don't believe in any god due to the complete
lack of evidence for any
of them.
Don't believe me, simply scan some
of the postings above and you can easily spot an aethist's post, they're generally mean and sarcastic and clear
evidence what the
lack of Biblical principles will «evolve» a person into.
The main - stream atheist
does not believe in the existence
of deities (most likely because, as the one responder said, for
lack of evidence).
In Santa We Trust didn't say he / she had all the information, just a
lack of evidence.
Don't bother trying «Vector particles» and all that... that's another terrible theory that has been postulated to support the
lack of evidence.
I run into a variant myself: I can not even remotely imagine how people can actually believe in whatever god they
do, despite a total
lack of evidence in that belief, and then conform their lives to it.
Bostontola — I don't know if you are new to CNN, buddy, but ATHEISTS Paint all people
of a religious group with a broad brush is worse than
lack of forgiveness, it aims to convict people with no
evidence much like racism.
Robert, your god
does not exist and your
lack of evidence is disturbingly familiar.
Don't you think it's time to maybe consider the possibility that the
lack of evidence indicates a
lack of supernatural superpower?
There are only so many ways you can try to explain that a
lack of disproof
does not equal proof, nor even
evidence.
Seems to me we have a double standard here — you asked for proof that god
does not exist, and we (multiple people) accommodated you within the bounds
of logic and
evidence (
lack thereof), but you have not (can not!)
@ Moby, If you don't believe in angels based on the
evidence or the
lack thereof that's fine, but if you're claiming that the nonexistence
of angels to be the absolute truth then you better provide the proof.
We happen to value honesty enough to say we
do not believe in your god due to an overwhelming
lack of evidence that such a being even exists in the first place.
This means that we readily admit that we don't know for sure, but in light
of the total
lack of evidence we simply can't believe in a supernatural god.
Given current
lack of evidence for proof
of anything supernatural, will there be leniency for those who simply and honestly claim, «I don't know», granted there is a supernatural, and that the Christian God is the true God who
did present us with an ultimatum to accept him or not, expecting us to wage the eternal fate
of our soul?
I am not an agnostic because I don't think it's very honest when faced with the
lack of evidence for God to say «Well both sides
of the debate are at a stand still!
to J.W. and fred — i think its rather silly to argue anything as fact if its cleary thought based (i.e.
lacking proof /
evidence) when asked about the where
did we come from or how the universe (whatever) i always answer with i don't know, but then i pose an idea — i state openly thats its only an idea... if any one
of you religions folks would simple agree to the FACT that what you BELIEVE is real is REALLY only an idea until proven (much like evolution) then i would find much more pleasing conversations beyond the realm
of atheists... but alas, i am still waiting — i found some but most are imovible in there beliefs that god is real, provable, and most def.
but i didn't state anything example — i stated that the theory
of evolution is yet to be proved and so with that i agree that due to that
lacking it is equal to the theory
of god... the only thing i said which is cemented truth for anything is that we don't know what the real answer is... and by stating ideas as facts serves no real purpose but a selfish one... lets call it an ease - ment on the inner self, the mind can now be at peace with the hope that when i die i get to live yet again... full belief in this is insane without
evidence.