Absence of evidence IS evidence of absence

I still think your analogy is not comparable. The lack of evidence is showing that the object isn't there, But yet you are transferring this to the defense of the statement "lack of evidence shows that the object doesn't exist. " Regardless, We can play the game with your flawed analogy if you want. Now it boils down to why would I not believe you if you said any elephant was there. Well, It all depends on what type of evidence I would expect: What type of evidence does one expect there to be for an elephant? Would I expect to find feathers strewn about? Would I expect to find raccoon tracks? No. Would I expect there to be deer scat? There is a specific type of evidence that I would expect from an elephant based on my experience with elephants. The questions then become, What type of evidence are you looking for? How can you be so sure you are looking for the right evidence? For all I know, You could be looking for the wrong type of evidence. The evidence could be right in front of you, You just don"t see it. Perhaps you're looking for deer dung when you should be looking for elephant dung lol. The fact that you don't see the evidence ("There is no evidence! ") could very well be explained by the following: (a) you are looking for the wrong evidence (b) you don"t know for sure what evidence to expect. (c) you simply don't see the evidence right in front of you. If one is not familiar with X, Then it is certainly possible that one may not know what evidence to expect from X. I can tell you with a high level of confidence what evidence a deer (and an elephant for that matter) leaves behind. I know them. I've been hunting deer my whole life. I take a newbie hunting and they look around and say "It doesn"t look like any deer have been here. " I just laugh and say "Dude, The evidence is all around you, You just don't see it! " (as they wipe the deer scat off their shoe). Sometimes I show them the tracks and they scoff and say "Those aren't deer tracks! " So alas. My argument still stands. Until you can rule out (a), (b), (c) you can"t say for certainty absence of evidence is evidence of absence. You say a lot of words on Proof vs Evidence. Is it sufficient to say then that you agree that evidence doesn"t necessarily PROVE? That's what your rebuttal suggest. My response is pretty straightforward. You start off by saying "Absence of evidence is evidence of absence" and then you go onto make claims that supposedly support it. But the first claim you make is the same statement "absence of evidence is the only way to indicate something doesn"t exist. " Geez. Isn"t that what you are trying to show? That"s like saying: "X means Y doesn"t exist. I"ll show you why. X is the only way to indicate Y doesn"t exist. " That game doesn"t work, Chief. Go ahead and curse and hurl insults. It"s the white flag of someone who can"t defend their own arguments. Usually insults and ridicule are the resort (sometimes the last resort, Often the first resort) of someone who can"t defend their position lol. I've shown that your argument, And your defense of it, Isn"t solid and the only thing you have left is to try and ridicule and intimidate and insult. It ain"t gonna work. Do it all you want, All it does is weaken your position Lol. It's easy to deduce unicorns don't exist? Why? Inferring what we know from other animals. If the unicorn is an animal, One would expect it to leave evidence like other animals-- things like bones, Tracks, Dung. So when one doesn't see this evidence it's reasonable to deduce Unicorns don't exist. With God it's a different story. What evidence are you expecting to see? If you are looking for evidence or traces much like an animal would leave evidence, I'd ask "Why would you expect God to leave evidence like that for you? " Your argument is this: absence of evidence for X is evidence of absence of X. The questions for you now become : a) What sort of evidence are you expecting of X? Why-- what basis do you have for this? b) how will you know evidence of X when you see it? c) how do you know for sure that are simply not seeing the evidence in front of you (a rewording of (b) above? Substitute X with elephant, Fly, Cow, Etc, And the questions are easy to answer. Substitute God for X and I would challenge you how are you able to answer a-c above. You've painted yourself into a corner chief, On your first argument, No less. Lol. I usually don't see people paint themselves into a corner until well into the 3rd or 4th round, But you did it in your opening statement. You must have a paintbrush in both hands lol. I'd put one of them down if I were you. Like an angry dog cornered, Your only response is to angrily hurl insults. Lol.