This is not merely an epistemological maxim; it is also a logical principle of inference. In other words, the mere absence of evidence for something does not logically establish that the thing itself is absent. For example, suppose someone says:
“There
are no Muslims in this building because I haven't seen any.”
That conclusion does not necessarily follow. Not seeing evidence of Muslims
is not, by itself, evidence
that there are no Muslims.
Applying this same
principle to the claim that Uzair was called the Son of God, there is no valid
argument from the opposing side merely on the basis that we lack evidence
confirming the claim. One
cannot simply argue, “We have no evidence of this; therefore, it did not
happen.” The absence of evidence, by
itself, does not establish that the claim is false.
I have always wondered
whether Christians are sincere enough to apply the same standards to their own
book before pointing fingers at others. So, let us turn the tables and see how
Christians explain this very issue raised by their own Bible.
“And in that day, declares the LORD, you will call me ‘My Husband,’ and
no longer will you call me ‘My Baal.” (Hosea
2:16)
Notice what is happening
in Hosea 2:16:
the God of the Old Testament commands His people to no longer call Him Baal. But who, or
rather, what is Baal? Baal was the name of a pagan deity worshipped by those
who rejected the worship of the God of Israel.
The passage suggests that
the Children of Israel had been using the name Baal in reference to their own God.
God, however, was aware of the association between this title and the pagan
deity. Therefore, He declares that His people are no longer to call Him Baal, since the
name had become associated with pagan worship.
In other words, the
passage demonstrates that a title or name can become inappropriate for God when
it carries an association with pagan worship, even if the people using it
intended to refer to the true God.
The
question is, where
in the Old Testament (Tanakh) do we find the Israelites worshipping Yahweh by
calling Him by the title Baal? The Tanakh contains no such
account in which the Israelites acknowledge Yahweh by giving Him such a title.
If they never called Yahweh Baal, then why does the text later change its title to husband?
The Bible
records many of the practices and forms of worship performed by the Israelites.
So why is there no account of the Israelites worshipping Yahweh while calling
Him Baal?
You argue with Muslims,
asking, “Where does the Bible say that the Jews called Ezra the Son of God?” as
if somehow Uzair must be the same figure as Ezra. Yet your very own standards
collapse when you cannot show where the Israelites called Yahweh “Baal.” Isn’t
that something?
This leads us back to the
aphorism, “Absence
of evidence is not evidence of absence.” Would Christians appeal to this
principle to save themselves from embarrassment, or would they concede that
Yahweh introduced a title belonging to a pagan deity and claimed that the
Israelites had used it?
If the latter is the case,
then this raises a further question about whether Yahweh’s statements can be
trusted. How can one confidently rely on such claims when there appears to be
no corresponding account in the Tanakh itself?
The other alternative is simple, show us explicitly from the Old Testament where the
Israelites called Yahweh “Baal” as their God.
