Rating is available when the video has been rented.
This feature is not available right now. Please try again later.
Published on May 12, 2013
I am sick to death of Christians failing to grasp the idea that a lack of evidence really is sufficient grounds for rejecting an unlikely claim. So in frustration, I went ahead and proved it mathematically using basic probability theory. Perhaps this will be enough to end the discussion once and for all.
I think we should give this proof a name. I propose we all it the "Anticitizen Theorem." :D
Exercises for the viewer:
(1) Let's suppose that evidence can be a union of multiple events:
E = A and B.
Start with the assumption that more evidence of X makes X more likely to be true. Then prove that less evidence makes X less likely.
(2) Change assumption 1 to the following:
Assumption 1: Let P(E|X) be some number greater than zero.
In other words, the probability of E does not even have to be greater than NOT-E. It just has to be nonzero.
Under what conditions will the absence of evidence still qualify as evidence of absence?