Is the adage logical? Obviously something can exist even if there is no evidence for it. Therefore to "refute" something isn't evidence required?
For example-
Did King Tut's tomb exist before it was discovered by Carter? Yes. The tomb did not POOF into existence when Carter discovered it.
Was there evidence for King Tut's tomb before it was discovered? No. Therefore if Hitchens had "refuted" the existence of the tomb (citing no evidence) he would have been wrong.
I think a better adage is-
The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
If atheists believe that things do not exist until we have evidence for them, then please defend that belief.
Thank you.
For example-
Did King Tut's tomb exist before it was discovered by Carter? Yes. The tomb did not POOF into existence when Carter discovered it.
Was there evidence for King Tut's tomb before it was discovered? No. Therefore if Hitchens had "refuted" the existence of the tomb (citing no evidence) he would have been wrong.
I think a better adage is-
The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
If atheists believe that things do not exist until we have evidence for them, then please defend that belief.
Thank you.