I often hear these statements, which are presented as convincing arguments. However, upon closer examination, these claims are easily debunked. Here they are.

1. You Can’t Prove a Negative.

2. Absence of Evidence is Evidence of Absence.

3. Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence.

Skeptics often use these false claims in comments. Let’s address each one. I’ll explain why they are flawed and provide links to non-theist sources supporting my conclusions.

“You Can’t Prove a Negative.”

I often hear this from atheists when I ask them why they believe in atheism. They usually say something like, “You can’t prove a negative,” as if that’s enough to support their position. But if you really think about it, they’re using a negative (“can’t”) to back up another negative, which doesn’t really make sense. It is a self-defeating statement.

Sometimes we can prove things by showing that they are not true. For example, we can prove that Santa Claus doesn’t live at the North Pole or that dogs don’t have wings. We can also prove that pots of gold are not at the end of rainbows and that unicorns (one-horned horses) don’t exist. Even though some people believe in these things, there is evidence to show that they are not real. Dr. Stephen Law, himself an atheist, agrees (see Psychology Today, Sept. 15, 2011).

This argument is an excuse for not giving good reasons for a position (such as atheism). It is itself making a claim without any evidence or argument. This is laziness. No matter what one’s position is, they should have good reasons for it.

“Absence of Evidence is Evidence of Absence.”

This claim is inaccurate for three reasons. First, it assumes that theism has no evidence, and disregards metaphysical arguments as evidence. Second, it is unscientific since there are scientists who argue against this claim. Third, it is simply bad reasoning and poor philosophy.

“Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

– Sir Martin Rees

Sir Martin Rees stated, “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”  in a NASA report regarding extraterrestrial intelligent life. We have no evidence that intelligent extraterrestrials exist within our universe – but that lack of evidence does not prove there are no intelligent extraterrestrials exist. (From a Christian perspective we accept the existence of intelligent life that is not of this world does exist – otherwise, we would not believe in angels.) If this is true of extraterrestrials then it is equally true about God.

Likewise, the late Dr. Carl Sagan, himself a well-known skeptic, in discussing the human brain stated, “A few students of the subject seem to have concluded that, because they have been unable to isolate and localize all higher brain functions, no future generation of neuroanatomists will be able to achieve this object. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

Again, as with the first claim, it seems like a good argument but once examined it fails. Additionally, in regard to the existence of God, it assumes that there is no evidence for God’s existence. The truth is there are several sound reasons for theism, as well as biblical reasons, and even scientific reasons such as the Fine-Tuning of the Universe or the Cosmological argument, which both point to theism.

“Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence”

Again from Psychology Today (March 20, 2011), Dr. Satoshi Kanazawa explores this statement and shows it to be lacking. For one reason who is the arbitrator of what is or what is not extraordinary evidence? All an extraordinary claim really needs is good or solid evidence or arguments. This is a false claim can skepticism uses as a paper shield in order to dismiss any and all evidence presented.

As a side note, I sometimes hear this regarding the resurrection of Christ. Since dead people stay dead (without intervention from God), on its surface it sounds like a good argument. But it isn’t. One reason is because we do have good historical evidence for the resurrection. Another reason this is faulty when applied to the resurrection of Christ is that the resurrection itself is the evidence for the extraordinary claim that Jesus made. When the Jews asked Jesus, “What sign do You show us as your authority for doing these things?” Christ’s response was, “Destroy this sanctuary, and in three days I will raise it up.” (John 2:18-19 LSB). The text goes on to tell us that “this sanctuary” was a reference to His body (vs. 21). This certainty is an extraordinary claim. The extraordinary evidence is found later in John’s Gospel in that Jesus actually rose from the dead, just as He said (John 20).

The three statements might seem like valid arguments, but they are actually not sound. They are excuses for not giving proper reasoning.