Replies

I am willing to admit that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Why would you admit that?

Of course it is! The fact is that it is strong circumstantial evidence of absence. In court we use the fact of the absence of evidence all the time to disprove assertions of fact. If someone claims that they were seriously hurt in January but there is no medical evidence to show that they saw any doctor until July, then that is both evidence to show that not only did they not get injured in January as they claim, but that they were not seriously injured as well.

Here you have the Catholics arguing that this is a first century Apostolic teaching, but there is no evidence until the Fourth Century of ANYONE actually teaching it. The absence of evidence both goes to prove that it was not a first century teaching AND that it is not an Apostolic teaching.

This "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" trueism is a falseism. The fact that you could not find any evidence of it being taught for 300 years IS evidence that it wasn't. I would say it is pretty close to conclusive evidence.

Of course it is! The fact is that it is strong circumstantial evidence of absence

Utterly ridiculous.

Where do you find what sort of utensils that Christians used to eat? Well, according to your logic, they didn't use any forks or knives or spoons. They don't write about it, so they must not have used any utensils. Apparently, they ate soup with their bare hands...

You see, Marlowe, people don't normally write about things that are taken for granted, nor do they write about things that people "all" agree on. Most of the writings we have are written to give suggestions on solving problems or making general proclamations. Mary's viriginity was not a prime issue of importance when people were discussing the resurrection of Christ. That talk only came later.

Thus, there are these two reasons why we don't find Christians talking about Mary's virginity the first 150 years. It was either already well known or it was not worth arguing about because it was already accepted.

Regards

I am willing to admit that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I followed by saying that the absence of evidence can also be exactly what it appears to be.

However, in terms of logic it is entirely possible that something has happened and I just don't have the evidence to prove it.

Everyone must admit, though, that this claim should prompt no one to be arrogant about any contention based on it.

If someone claims that they were seriously hurt in January but there is no medical evidence to show that they saw any doctor until July, then that is both evidence to show that not only did they not get injured in January as they claim, but that they were not seriously injured as well.

The difference is that Our Lady's virginity is not an injury, it is an absence of it.