The debate "If there is no evidence that something exists it does not exist" was started by
November 17, 2019, 2:12 pm.
11 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 20 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
diecinueve posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
TheExistentialist posted 3 arguments, Allirix posted 2 arguments to the disagreers part.
carson, StrangeTime and 9 visitors agree.
TheExistentialist, Allirix, historybuff, romkirk95, mtbtheboss, Cisco, Craven198787 and 13 visitors disagree.
Evidence in 2075 isn't evidence that's available today. Evidence that is measurable today, but used to form the wrong conclusion, is still evidence. Maybe that's what he is saying?
Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid
" If so the gravitational pull of a black hole on the other side of the universe is evidence for a black hole's existence, even if we don't notice it or confounded the effect with something else"
If we can't measure it, can't perceive it, can't detect, can't quantify it, can't observe it, can't contextualize it; it is not an available body of facts to support any believe or proposition and therefore can't be considered evidence.
Let's look at Aliens again; if we found out in 2075 that aliens exist, would you consider our knowledge of their existence in 2075 evidence for their existence today?
Could something still be evidence if we haven't noticed it? If so the gravitational pull of a black hole on the other side of the universe is evidence for a black hole's existence, even if we don't notice it or confounded the effect with something else.
That's the only way I can agree with the statement that something doesn't exist unless it has evidence. But I've basically defined evidence with existing so it's a pretty silly solution.
we had no quantum physics theories until the 1960's and Max Plank didn't release his paper on the plank constant until 1900, so to say that in the early 1800's we had calculations that demonstrated quantum fields is simply not true.
Lets go back to 200 B.C. we had no understanding of cellular biology, no evidence that it existed, yet it obviously did. The same goes for black holes, we couldn't possibly fathom them back in 200 B.C. yet they existed.
Then the topic statement is pointless. Maybe all the things you don't think exist have evidence, but we just haven't found it yet. You would need to disprove the idea that evidence exists in order for the topic statement to be relevant.
it had not been discovered, but with calculations it had been demonstrated and that counts as evidence
No; it simply means that we haven't found any evidence yet. In the 1800's we had no evidence of quantum fields yet they existed. Up until very recently we had no evidence of gravitational waves, yet they exist. We currently don't have evidence for alien life, yet it very well might exist.