The absence of evidence

The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.

The subject of evidence is in the news because of President Donald Trump’s claim of voting fraud in the recent US Presidential election.

The Biden camp rejects Trump’s claim by saying that there is no evidence for electoral fraud. Even the BBC has repeated the claim that there is no evidence of electoral fraud.

How can anyone know that there is no electoral fraud? They may say that there is no evidence of widespread electoral fraud, but to say that there is none shows a person who can neither speak the truth nor care about the dogmatism of their statements.

This raises many matters:

  1. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Let me remind you of the well-known difficulty of finding a needle in a haystack. It is difficult to prove a negative, that there is no needle in the haystack. But the Biden camp has no difficulty saying that there is no evidence. At least The Guardian uses the phrase ‘little evidence’.
  2. There is no evidence if you do not look for it, or look in the wrong place.
  3. The New York Times called the “officials in every state and found no evidence of voter fraud”. Who expected ‘officials’ to admit to voter fraud on their premises? Besides, how do they know what happened to the voters’ ballot papers before they arrived in their election machine? As they say about computers – “rubbish in, rubbish out”. This is looking in the wrong place and shows us the quality of mainstream media investigation and modern journalism.
  4. The Biden camp says: you have produced no evidence, but who is ‘you’? There are multitudes of YouTube videos showing dead people having voted. Others were sent two ballots to their different names. Others were invited to send for ballots for dead people. There are reports of 100% voting for Biden in some postal batches. The truth or otherwise of these allegations is not the point, but are they not ‘evidence’? Is it only evidence when it is submitted to the law enforcement agencies or to a law court?
  5. This demonstrates that debate uses words about which there is no agreement on their definition – and no wonder as vocabulary is changing in this secular society with its shifting goalposts.
  6. It demonstrates the poverty of public debate, which is not debate but shouting down the other side in order to impose their will. In the 21st century, religions tend to debate. Not so the secularist. They are still in the 16th-century mode of thought and they want to impose their will.
  7. Secularism has added 20th-century Goebbels’ propaganda with the incessant repetition of the same message whatever are the responses.
  8. The unwillingness to change or clarify the narrative demonstrates the prejudice in public debaters. How often do you find people changing their mind as a result of public debate?
  9. It demonstrates the inability to tell the truth. “Truth has fallen in the street and equity cannot enter’ Isa 59:14.
  10. As I write this, today at First Minister’s Questions Nicola Sturgeon called President Trump “the soon-to-be-former President of the United States”, showing that she could not bring herself to call him what he is, the President of the United States, and demonstrating her prophetic powers in addition to her medical prowess.

The solution?

The inability to face the truth and to speak the truth is the price the population pays for the loss of Christian influence in public life. Regular readers of the Christian Bible learn the need to be careful how one interprets the words of Scripture, from which one may learn to be careful how to interpret words in ordinary conversation. However, even the vast majority of Christians in Scotland and about 45% of Americans “seldom or never read their Bibles”, and the effect of this is clearly seen in public life.


1 Dec 2020: some examples of fraudulent behaviour. 27 hours without one Trump vote; putting ballot batches back through the counting machines; more ballots than registered voters. Truck drivers driving ballots from New York state to Pennsylvannia state and biased adjudication of doubtful votes. Media and officials ignoring complaints.

3 Dec 2020: US President Donald Trump’s speech on voter fraud in the recent US Presidential election.

One thought on “The absence of evidence

  1. Mr Colin Mansfield

    Hi Donald,
    What we are seeing in the United States is “Media led” decision making, on TV and in the newspapers. How wrong to give an hourly count of % votes for each college, 45% Democrats to 52% Republicans. This leaves the door open to add or subtract postal votes from certain districts as the count continues through the night, in order to sway events. Even so the major polls before the Election were wrong, the Democratic landslide fizzled out. Media frenzy ensued, even though software by Dominion was found to have “glitches and stoppages” during the tallying of vote sub-totals. Only a manual hand count by Federal 3rd parties can assess if a fraud has been engineered. Then there is the querying of late (un-postmarked) ballot boxes arriving long after the Election closedown. How is it they all favour one side the losing Democrats? Who checks for duplication of papers, why are they unsigned? And all the time the % ratios are made public by who, the counting clerks or the dodgy software. The Media monster has become hysterical that it ~ the “It” has been questioned.
    We see this happening all the time in other areas, crimes, the Co-Vid virus death counts, the economy, unemployment figures, the Media monster swings from one end of the spectrum to the other, as it tries to foretell the truth, proving that “It” has some uncanny prophetic authority.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.