Reply #180: Ugh. Get back to me when you prove that leprechauns don't exist. [View All]

[laconicsax]

Because there's the exact same amount of evidence to prove he existence of leprechauns as there is to prove the Exodus narrative.

I wonder if you would have jumped on this thread if edhopper had said, "leprechauns don't exist." Something tells me you wouldn't have even blinked had he said that.

I also find it amusing that you keep relying on Sagan's summary of the argument from ignorance as proof that Moses must exist. Trust me, the irony of using an argument from ignorance to charge an argument from ignorance is not lost on me.

Before using science to prove your point, you might want to familiarize yourself with the null hypothesis since it's the default position in science. Had someone proposed a planet beyond the orbit of Saturn in, say the 1750s, no one would have accepted it because there was no evidence for it. No one would have said, "absence of evidence..." to support the claim, because in science, absence of evidence IS evidence of absence. The Michelson-Morely experiment was a great example of this--everyone was sure that light propagates through the luminiferous aether, and when experimental results failed to produce any evidence of it, it began to be realized that the aether didn't exist.

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is the rallying cry for countless cranks like cryptozoologists, homeopaths, and anyone else who needs logical fallacies to make their point so while I wouldn't say that you're in good company, you're certainly in well numbered company.

So, let me know when you prove that leprechauns don't exist and remember, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence!