The " no evidence" argument

[traillius]

" there is no evidence for God. " therefore God doesn’t exist and belief in God is delusional
This is an untenable argument and here’s why. At age 18, widely considered the age of adulthood, most people are free to have any beliefs or lack they want, relative to what their parents presumbly taught them ( i.e. religious beliefs of some kind, if you are among the vast majority. If there is no evidence whatsoever, I have to wonder what motivates those who still maintain some theistic belief. evidence exists, and that would be in the form of whatever convinces them to maintain such beliefs. Something also causes people who have been known to convert to various theistic beliefs, after reaching the age of adulthood as an atheist. evidence is simply reason to believe or not believe a certain way. Whether the evidence is compelling enough for specific individuals may be somewhat subject to discussion, but to imply that no evidence whatsoever exists inevitably leads to the following conclusion : The only possible way an average adult could maintain theistic beliefs is either through sheer randomness, or for no reason whatsoever. stastically randomness cannot account for it, because then atheist and theistic belief would be within one standard deviation of a 50/50 split. Clearly not the case. No study anywhere, or even any athiest claim, states that half, or even a third of all people, are atheists. If any such study exists, I would like a link. And if it were for no reason, than no one could possibly give any reason. People give reasons, whether or not everyone accepts them doesn’t negate that they exist. By virtue of inevitably leading to an false conclusion, the premise must be false. Therefore " no evidence " is fallacious. The only way they can maintain no evidence is by pointing to a body of knowledge that is, by human design, necessarily silent either way, and then say, evidence isn’t here, therefore its nowhere. Which is also flawed.

 

[Anthony_V]

May I add, here are some wonderful premises by St. Thomas Aquinas that are useful in the apologetics field:

The First Way: Argument from Motion

Our senses prove that some things are in motion.

Things move when potential motion becomes actual motion.

Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion.

Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect (i.e., if both actual and potential, it is actual in one respect and potential in another).

Therefore nothing can move itself.

Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else.

The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum.

Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

The Second Way: Argument from Efficient Causes

We perceive a series of efficient causes of things in the world.

Nothing exists prior to itself.

Therefore nothing is the efficient cause of itself.

If a previous efficient cause does not exist, neither does the thing that results.

Therefore if the first thing in a series does not exist, nothing in the series exists.

The series of efficient causes cannot extend ad infinitum into the past, for then there would be no things existing now.

Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

The Third Way: Argument from Possibility and Necessity (Reductio argument)

We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, that come into being and go out of being i.e., contingent beings.

Assume that every being is a contingent being.

For each contingent being, there is a time it does not exist.

Therefore it is impossible for these always to exist.

Therefore there could have been a time when no things existed.

Therefore at that time there would have been nothing to bring the currently existing contingent beings into existence.

Therefore, nothing would be in existence now.

We have reached an absurd result from assuming that every being is a contingent being.

Therefore not every being is a contingent being.

Therefore some being exists of its own necessity, and does not receive its existence from another being, but rather causes them. This all men speak of as God.

The Fourth Way: Argument from Gradation of Being

There is a gradation to be found in things: some are better or worse than others.

Predications of degree require reference to the “uttermost” case (e.g., a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest).

The maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus.

Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.

The Fifth Way: Argument from Design

We see that natural bodies work toward some goal, and do not do so by chance.

Most natural things lack knowledge.

But as an arrow reaches its target because it is directed by an archer, what lacks intelligence achieves goals by being directed by something intelligence.

Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.

 

[Sair]

I think when discussing the issue of evidence for God, it’s important to keep in mind what people mean when they say there is no evidence for God. My experience is that people usually mean this as a shorthand way of saying there is nothing that compels them to believe in any particular version of God as opposed to some alternative explanation that the evidence points to more directly.

As to the fact that many people either continue to believe or convert after reaching the age of majority, I think it’s as well not to underestimate the power of parental and peer influence. We’re social animals, after all; if our fellows believe that something is the case, then in the absence of sufficient evidence to the contrary, our tendency is to believe, at least broadly, what our family and friends believe - the more so the more respect or admiration we have for any particular individuals.

I think it’s possible to make the case that there’s no direct evidence for God. There has been nothing thus far presented that a person can point to and say, “It’s impossible to observe this piece of unequivocal evidence and still doubt the existence of God.” True, there are plenty of things in our day-to-day experience that we don’t completely understand, plenty of things in the universe for which we don’t have a complete and detailed explanation - but this simply provides a space in which people may invest belief in God as an explanation if they so choose.

With that in mind, it’s worth referencing an important point made by philosopher Stephen Law that just because a theory of reality can be made to harmonise with such evidence as there is, that doesn’t mean this particular theory is true. Any theory can be made to fit evidence, just by explaining away the inconsistencies. In the case of God, this is often done by making the definition of God so nebulous that anything and everything can be accepted as evidence for God’s existence.

 

[PrinceAnceints]

With whatever the specifics of any general reason as to why people do not believe in God through reasons of the lack of perceivable observable proof, that in 1 Corinthians 1:18,19, Paul wrote: “The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the learning of the learned I will set aside”. This directly states that God has made the wisdom of the world and of the learned of the world, foolishness. The reasons as to why someone would not belive in God through the means of the percieved lack of observable proof is an offshoot of this.

God Himself has made the truth of the world foolishness and those of the world cannot comprehend this wisdom, and cannot comprehend that of God through their own powers, or lack thereof. It is in transending this world and the knowledge of this world through the transendence of earthy knowledge to that of God through His Spirit, that it is this, that the proof of God is in at least this one way, as there are other ways, that the knowledge of this world can be transecended beyond this world to that of God in spirit. In this, there is proof of God.

God is spirit, and in spirit is God and the proof of God is in spirit. This is something that the world and its worldly wisdom cannot comprehend without a true transcendence in spirit to that of God.

 

[tonyrey]

I think it’s possible to make the case that there’s no direct evidence for God.

There’s no direct evidence for anything except the existence of your own thoughts, feelings, perceptions and decisions!

 

[Insight]

No study anywhere, or even any athiest claim, states that half, or even a third of all people, are atheists. If any such study exists, I would like a link.

“Where an atheist might endeavor to lead others to consider their category to be 16% - 18% of the general population, it is more realistically about 3% - 4%.”

ArguingWithAtheists.com

The site also compiles scientific evidence of God.

God Bless

 

[Sair]

There’s no direct evidence for anything except the existence of your own thoughts, feelings, perceptions and decisions!

Which would mean, essentially, that if I neither think, feel, perceive nor decide that God exists, then I am justified in proclaiming that there is no God!

 

[inocente]

“Where an atheist might endeavor to lead others to consider their category to be 16% - 18% of the general population, it is more realistically about 3% - 4%.”

Depends where you are. In Spain the government is required by law to collect various statistics, which include monthly polls done by an independent agency. One of the standard questions is How do you define your religion?

E.g. April 2011: Catholic 72.6%, Other religion 2.7%, No belief 13.5%, Atheist 9.3%, no answer 2.0%.

So in a once overwhelmingly Catholic country around 22% no longer see themselves that way.

 

[inocente]

God is spirit, and in spirit is God and the proof of God is in spirit. This is something that the world and its worldly wisdom cannot comprehend without a true transcendence in spirit to that of God.

Welcome PrinceAnceints.

Agreed. We are embarrassed by feelings, we want to appear rational, but even an uber-rationalist experiences love and spiritual feelings. She may not want to express it through a traditional system of belief, but all long lasting religions are long lasting because they acknowledge the spiritual, not because they are uber-rational. Paul knew that the spirit isn’t in books and words, the spirit is in the foolishness we can’t put into words.

Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength. - 1 Cor 1:22-25 NIV

Although since a lot of folk seem to need signs and rationalizations, Paul may fall on a lot of deaf ears here.

 

[James1215]

My comment is that you can’t assume that because someone believes something, there is evidence for it.

As to the start of the universe, what if universes can just spontaneously happen? A lot of physics is weird, like quantum stuff. How about the best answer yet is that we just don’t know!

 

[PrinceAnceints]

My comment is that you can’t assume that because someone believes something, there is evidence for it.

As to the start of the universe, what if universes can just spontaneously happen? A lot of physics is weird, like quantum stuff. How about the best answer yet is that we just don’t know!

It is not a belief of our own making. It is of God’s making. His Spirit gives us knowledge. It is not our belief or imagination. In this we know. He shows us Himself in our own selves, but also He shows us the truth and the depths of the truth of the Bible, Sacred Tradition and by the Spirit as well, He also gives the Magistarium of the Church truth without error. And it is the Spirit of God that we know that the Magisterium is truth, because the Spirit gives us to know this truth.

The creation of the earth is something that the Church gives a wide latitude in that actual prossess of its creation. Don’t quote me on this, as it is vague in my understanding of what the Church teaches on this.

 

[James1215]

I think I read something quite detailed and (suprisingly!) in recognition of the Big Bang as the origin of the universe by Cardinal Ratzinger. He also recognised evolution as the most supported explanation of human development, taking each to be linked to Christian teaching.

On the origin of belief, I think it is actually a re-statement of faith to say that God speaks to us or gives us our knowledge that He exists. How do you experience God? I have occasionally tried, but I do not think I have ever had a spiritual experience.

 

[James1215]

Sair - interesting post! As crude as the gesture would be, if there was a ‘like’ button, I would like your post.

 

[Insight]

Depends where you are. In Spain the government is required by law to collect various statistics, which include monthly polls done by an independent agency. One of the standard questions is How do you define your religion?

E.g. April 2011: Catholic 72.6%, Other religion 2.7%, No belief 13.5%, Atheist 9.3%, no answer 2.0%.

So in a once overwhelmingly Catholic country around 22% no longer see themselves that way.

The ArguingWithAtheists statistics were global figures. Still, for an entire country to be nearly 73% Catholic is quite impressive.

As to the start of the universe, what if universes can just spontaneously happen?

Isn’t it a anomalous that writings over 5,000 years old (Old Testament) outline a creating scenario similar to the most widely accepted “Big Bang” hypothesis?

“The most widely accepted scientific creation scenario is the Big Bang theory, which holds that everything in the Universe was created from nothing. Coincidentally, the Christian Bible likewise asserts that God created everything from nothing (Genesis 1:1) (Hebrews 11:3). Pope John Paul II felt that the Big Bang theory was the Creation scenario closest to that portrayed in the Bible. The Universe is currently expanding. The inevitable conclusion to the Big Bang scenario is the Big Crunch, when gravitational forces overcome and halt the expansion, causing the Universe to collapse in on itself. The unfathomable gravity eventually creates one enormous massive super black hole containing all matter in the Universe, collapsing in on itself with such great gravitational force as to approach zero in size. The properties of matter falter as this super black hole reaches critical mass and explodes into pure energy, triggering another Big Bang, forming a new Universe (a cycling recreation). In both the Old and New Testament, God creates a new Heaven and a new Earth, as the old Heaven and Earth pass away (Isaiah 65:17, Revelations 21:01)”.

arguingwithatheists.com/Pages/Bible_References.htm
God Bless

 

[followingtheway]

As to the start of the universe, what if universes can just spontaneously happen? A lot of physics is weird, like quantum stuff. How about the best answer yet is that we just don’t know!

Science proves the universe is not eternal. What created the universe, if the Big Bang happened what created the Big Bang? Every explanation to the Big Bang still has a gap or a loophole and had to come from somewhere.

But God was always there and needed no creator. And plus, if this was an accident, why is everything so ordered and complex? Every single unconscious force of nature like tornadoes, hurricanes, only create destruction.

And how does evolution in itself explain the golden ratio mask, the human trait of a sense of humor, the female orgasm, and homosexuality if it is truly genetic?

 

[James1215]

And isn’t it curious that Democritus talks about ‘atoms’ thousands of years before Rutherford investigated their structure? Democritus was explicating ideas different from current notions of the material world, and it is easy enough to suppose with hindsight that his knowledge was advanced for his time because of the similarity.

 

[James1215]

‘And how does evolution in itself explain the golden ratio mask, the human trait of a sense of humor, the female orgasm, and homosexuality if it is truly genetic?’

I cannot explain all of these, and I hope that they are not all a mystery to you!

Would like to point out that one could interpret Scripture as providing for a theory of the Big Crunch, but this is reflective of an unnecessarily active imagination. Current observations indicate that the universe will continue expanding at an increasing pace, rather than turn into a Crunch.

The sense of humour, orgasm and (homo)sexuality can be incorporated within naturalistic, evolution-recognising paradigms. Daniel Dennett deals with free will, consciousness and morality from such a view - I’d certainly recommend Freedom Evolves for food for thought. Next to these, such aspects of subjective experience are small problems.

 

[tonyrey]

Which would mean, essentially, that if I neither think, feel, perceive nor decide that God exists, then I am justified in proclaiming that there is no God!

According to that interpretation you are also justified in proclaiming there is nothing but your thoughts, feelings, perceptions and decisions. You have missed the point that there’s no ***direct ***evidence for anything except the existence of our own thoughts, feelings, perceptions and decisions!..

 

[tonyrey]

My comment is that you can’t assume that because someone believes something, there is evidence for it.

Nor can you assume that because someone doesn’t believe something there is no evidence for it.

As to the start of the universe, what if universes can just spontaneously happen?

What if it just happens that you are thinking and your thoughts have no significance?

A lot of physics is weird, like quantum stuff. How about the best answer yet is that we just don’t know!

That is not an answer because it leads nowhere. We can’t base our lives on “we just don’t know”!

 

[James1215]

Tonyrey, I like your spirit!

Indeed you’re right, lacking belief does not show there is no evidence for that belief. If either of us were to make a statement from this position of healthy skepticism, we would have to justify it.

I think my thoughts have no significance outside myself and the people they touch, and if we don’t know something (like the origin of the universe), we don’t know it. In any scenario like this it is fine to speculate, but best to admit we’re far from certain. If we really cannot base our life on a lack of external meaning, that is tough luck I guess. However, one part of humanism is acting to make the best of life for everyone now, in recognition of the uncertainty about the supernatural.