Thread by @enigmaoftruth1

Thread on the misuse of evidence and it’s meaning by atheists: (By itsnobody)

1. It looks like the value of evidence and what evidence means has become obscured now that the atheists have taken over science.

2. The atheists have tried to trick people into believing such lies as:
– “Lack of evidence indicates that a claim is false”
– “Absence of evidence is evidence of absence”
– “Assuming that things are false until proven true is valid”

3.
– “You canʼt prove a negative”
– “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”

4. Now to debunk these claims:
Claim: “Lack of evidence indicates that a claim is false”
Correct Claim: “Contradictory evidence indicates that a claim is false”
Claim: “Absence of evidence is evidence of absence”
Correct Claim: “Contradictory evidence is evidence of absence”

5. Claim: “Assuming that things are false until proven true is valid”
Correct Claim: “Assuming that things are false because of contradictory evidence is valid”

6. In order to falsify these statements we can just point out counterexamples:
– Everything proven to exist or be true in modern science now lacked evidence in the past
– Unproven mathematical theorems of the past

7. If a mere lack of evidence indicates that a claim is false then we should expect everything in modern science to be false since everything in modern science lacked evidence during the time-period that it lacked empirical Testability.

8. There was no shred of evidence for everything in modern science now from the heliocentric theory, atoms, quarks, black holes, electromagnetism, General Relativity, Newtonian gravity, and so on during the time-period that these things lacked empirical Testability.

9. So this completely falsifies the reasoning that a “lack of evidence” indicates that a claim is false.
Many theories and hypotheses have been falsified in science with contradictory evidence, not a mere ‘lack of evidenceʼ.

10. So whatʼs contradictory evidence? Itʼs just evidence that contradicts a claim.
Contradictory evidence can only exist if a hypothesis is empirically testable, so evidence is only relevant if a hypothesis is empirically testable.

11. Claim: “You canʼt prove a negative” Correct Claim: “You can prove a negative”
In mathematics and logic itʼs easy to prove a negative, just use a proof by contradiction or counterexamples. There are lots of negative proofs that exist.

12. Hereʼs an example, a negative statement: “There is no such thing as the greatest odd integer” can easily be proven by using a proof by contradiction.

13. You can prove a negative by falsifying a positive, like if someone claims “Every odd integer is prime” then using a counterexample like the integer 9 you would prove the statement “Not every odd integer is prime” true.

@Jollof145