The 'no proof' argument against God

[traillius]

I get this from atheists a lot. " there is no proof of God, therefore he doesn’t exist " By the very nature of God, as monotheists understand him, he exists outside of time or space. Most often in life, things are known by their effect. Absolute rroof doesn’t really even exist for anything, fundamentally. All one can do is take available evidence, which is never all possible evidence, and make a reasonable conjecture based on that evidence. Now as far as no ‘evidence’ for God, what they are really saying is that “we are unwilling to accept the conclusion that God exists and therefore the evidence leading to that conclusion doesn’t exist.” Most aren’t aware of this. Due to external impediments, unrelated to the matter of proof, evidence, or veracity, or the validity of any possible argument, they are unable or unwilling to accept the conclusion. I will allow that no sufficient evidence or proof exists, for them at least. But this is due to the aforementioned impediments, not to the validity of evidence, proof or arguments presented to them.
An absurd, but logically consistent outcome of the no proof argument is that gravity, for instance, did not exist prior to the advent of modern humans. Non human animals lack the mental capacity to grasp the concept of gravity. Thus only the effect of gravity existed, but not actual gravity.
For the record, I don’t believe this about gravity. I was simply pointing out where the no proof argument would lead, if held as such.
Obviously, both gravity, and the effect thereof, existed before humans did. This is one case among many that contradicts the 'proof or evidence is necessary for something to exist ’ argument. They may refuse to believe or accept God and therefore cannot accept the evidence that is available, or valid arguments for God’s existence but that is an impediment based objection, and not one based on logic or available evidence. Of course, many are not consciously aware of the impediment. More will view what is an impediment as irrelevent. Instead, they simply discount the evidence, attack the argument, even illogically, or simply engage in ad hominem attempts to discredit the argument.

 

[SonCatcher]

The argument is fallacious. “No proof” means there is simply a lack of evidence. There is also no evidence for non-existence.

By analogy (a poor one, to be sure), ask a mute person to recite a quotation from any work of William Shakespeare. Naturally, he will be unable to do so. Does that prove there was never a person called William Shakespeare? Not at all. The mute person did not say no such person exists. He is unable to say anything but his silence does not even prove his inability to speak as even speaking persons may choose to remain silent.

I hope the analogy helps you understand their fallacy. It likely won’t win any arguments.

Something that might, however, is law. In law, a criminal must be convicted in part of evidence. Very frequently, despicable people are arrested and charged of a crime. The preponderance of opinion is that this person most likely committed the crime. However, if there is insufficient evidence to convict, he is released, even if there is no evidence of innocence at all.

I would ask the atheist to provide positive proof of non-existence

 

[zdon011]

As long as agnostics/atheists are allowed to float free in their theoretical void, they can arrogantly pontificate on ‘no proof’ and wear the poor believer down with logical fallacies. The agnostic/atheist needs to be brought firmly down to earth before a proper debate can begin.

What this means in a Christian context is that the agnostic/atheist must be presented with the thesis of Christ’s divinity, based on a defence of the Gospel account and early Church history. The debate takes place on fairer ground, because now that the agnostic/atheist has to face specific historical facts, he/she can no longer appeal to broad, general statements like ‘religion is irrational’.

Hope this helped. I get a bit wordy when I’m really into a topic

Blessings,
zdon

 

[traillius]

I would ask the atheist to provide positive proof of non-existence

The funny thing is, when that has been presented, they refer to it as the logical fallacy of burden of proof, saying the burden always falls on the affirmative claimant.

I guess to their minds the determination of a logical fallacy is based on whether one agrees with the conclusion drawn from said ‘fallacy.’ Of course, since atheists always consider theists ‘wrong’ only theists can be illogical. Atheists, some of them anyway, consider themselves incapable of being illogical. I guess they have no emotions,which are irrational, even if organic, but whatever.

If an atheists says " I don’t believe in God, " that is their exercise of free will. But to say " there is no God " is far more irrational and ignorant of reality than even an agnostic view that says " I don’t if there is a god, so I will neither believe, nor disbelieve. " At least agnostics are consistent. Some atheists will try to impose their lack of belief onto the entirety of reality by claiming, errantly,that there is no possibility of any deity ever having existed. And then, they add to this infinite audacity, by claiming WE are the arrogant ones.

 

[colmcille1]

I recall a very short-lived “discussion” I had with an atheist on this very topic on a secular website a while back. He asked for proof. I replied that the proof he was seeking was not the legalistic one of which we are accustomed. He then stated that my stating this did not construe a reply. End of story.

I deduced from this briefest of exchanges that we were operating from different spheres. However, while I, as a believer, fully understand that the structure of laws are man-made, he cannot or will not understand the other Divine structure I hold with to be above a human construct.

Another interesting area in any such potential debates is Scripture. Atheists (in my experience) are fond of saying that such-and-such a verse is taken out of context. But what, I ask, is the alternative to verse citation? Do they require the entire chapter? Or an exhaustive concordance with said verse?

A very good topic and one that will run and run…into eternity!?
God Bless,
Colmcille1.

 

[Sante]

“the agnostic/atheist has to face specific historical facts”

Unfortunately for theists the historical facts do not support the claims of any religion.
For example, the vast majority of the Bible is not a historical document at all. Outside of religious documents, there is no evidence at all for a Moses. This is but one major example, of which there are many more.

So if you “face historical facts”, there is some explaining to do. Even the character of Jesus is a synthesis of other son of God hero figures. A Jewish version of Mercury, Apollo etc.

 

[traillius]

Some atheists, and perhaps some theists, consider themselves to be both a party to a debate, and also the judge of the debate. This is inherently a conflict of interest. But I doubt they see that, agree, or care. To their way of thinking, we aren’t their equals. Rather than refuting an argument cogently, they resort to critiquing the presentation itself, with emotion, and no actual response aimed at refutation.

 

[traillius]

“the agnostic/atheist has to face specific historical facts”

Unfortunately for theists the historical facts do not support the claims of any religion.
For example, the vast majority of the Bible is not a historical document at all. Outside of religious documents, there is no evidence at all for a Moses. This is but one major example, of which there are many more.

So if you “face historical facts”, there is some explaining to do. Even the character of Jesus is a synthesis of other son of God hero figures. A Jewish version of Mercury, Apollo etc.

This is irrelevent. Prior to babylon, persia, greece, rome, etc… texts of a nonreligious nature are known to have existed to any great extent. Therefore, no grounds can be made either way as to their veracity. Thus, either we agree on the likelihood of their veracity, on their own merit, or dismiss the texts, simply because of their religious content. If that is the position taken by atheists, no common ground is possible. The ‘great’ middle eastern and mediteranean empires, however, kept extensive written records, which largely support at least the historical veracity of biblical texts from the same time periods.

 

[colmcille1]

Some atheists, and perhaps some theists, consider themselves to be both a party to a debate, and also the judge of the debate. This is inherently a conflict of interest. But I doubt they see that, agree, or care. To their way of thinking, we aren’t their equals. Rather than refuting an argument cogently, they resort to critiquing the presentation itself, with emotion, and no actual response aimed at refutation.

This is true. I myself was accused (on another prolix thread) of “squandering an opportunity” to be the “face of the church”!! As if I would for a nanosecond presume to put myself up as a spokesman for the Faith! (I have a bad enough time as it is trying to form cogent sentences let
alone be an official voice!) On the same thread I was also buttonholed for using Biblical quotes when, in actual fact, I did not even mention the Bible! And, the piece de resistance, it was arrogantly pointed out that I ought to remove the beam from my own eye etcetera as if an atheist had a right to throw Scripture in my face! (God, it seems, can come in handy when it suits!)

Oh yes, my nose has been considerably sharpened to the “debating” style of atheists et al.
God Bless,
Colmcille1.

 

[humble_catholic]

“the agnostic/atheist has to face specific historical facts”

Unfortunately for theists the historical facts do not support the claims of any religion.
For example, the vast majority of the Bible is not a historical document at all. Outside of religious documents, there is no evidence at all for a Moses. This is but one major example, of which there are many more.

So if you “face historical facts”, there is some explaining to do. Even the character of Jesus is a synthesis of other son of God hero figures. A Jewish version of Mercury, Apollo etc.

Actually there is some evidence outside of the bible itself that talks about Jesus . Also even most mainstream atheist historians do believe that Jesus the man existed. The Jesus Mythers are really on the fringe with the other loony conspiracy theorists.

Also, the new testamant has one of the highest if not highest historicity rates of all time as far as historical documents of that time. Luke was one of the top notch historians of that time and his accounts within the gospel of Luke have proven more accurate then even secular historical accounts of those times and Luke has even uncovered leaders of certain towns that secular historians didnt account for which were proven by later archeological digs.

There simply isnt any religion that can come close to the historicity of the new testament.
Sir William Ramsey was an expert archeologist who was an atheist. He went on an archeological mission to show from his archeological finds alone that Christianity was a myth. He came back a believer .,
I suggest you study this hard before making the claim that historical facts dont support the claims of any religion

 

[zdon011]

“the agnostic/atheist has to face specific historical facts”

Unfortunately for theists the historical facts do not support the claims of any religion.
For example, the vast majority of the Bible is not a historical document at all. Outside of religious documents, there is no evidence at all for a Moses. This is but one major example, of which there are many more.

So if you “face historical facts”, there is some explaining to do. Even the character of Jesus is a synthesis of other son of God hero figures. A Jewish version of Mercury, Apollo etc.

Please don’t take this personally, Sante, but you say in your profile that you are ‘Catholic’.
I assume that you meant your above post seriously and in good faith. If so, what do you believe as a Catholic?

 

[zdon011]

“the agnostic/atheist has to face specific historical facts”

Unfortunately for theists the historical facts do not support the claims of any religion.
For example, the vast majority of the Bible is not a historical document at all. Outside of religious documents, there is no evidence at all for a Moses. This is but one major example, of which there are many more.

So if you “face historical facts”, there is some explaining to do. Even the character of Jesus is a synthesis of other son of God hero figures. A Jewish version of Mercury, Apollo etc.

By the way, I trust that you obtained your information from reputable scholars/historians, not ‘Zeitgeist’ or other works of pseudo-science. If you had actually looked at evidence from the fields of Levantine archaeology or religious history, you would find that your statements are based on a twisted view of the evidence entirely motivated by liberal revisionism. Correlations between Christ and pagan gods were never taken seriously until the speculations of comparative religionists in the early 20th century. These overly-broad hypotheses do not stand up to rigorous examination, and have been completely discounted in serious scholarship.

By th 1970s, even ‘liberal’ scholars recognised the ‘Jesus myth’ idea as an unsupportable fringe theory. It has only been dug up recently by a few amateur researchers (who rely on outdated 19th century theories) with a militant atheist agenda.

The simple fact is that the four Gospels are the earliest, most reliable source for the ‘Jesus myth’. They, or at least the sources they rely on, were written within a lifetime from the time Christ’s supposed life. The idea that a complete myth (when fiction was basically non-existent as a genre) sprang from the pens of four separate writers in such a short time, when there was great motivation and facility to refute them, is absurd. Also, the Gospels are written as honest, realistic eyewitness accounts. Recognisably mythical/fantastic accretions only appear in much later, sectarian accounts like the Gnostic ‘Gospels’.

God bless,
zdon

 

[paul_c]

The scientific method can not be used to prove the existence of a God that exists outside of time and space. This does not prove that God doesn’t exist. It simply recognizes the limits of the method.

However, the existence of God is not beyond the scope of reason. We can see the effect of God’ existence, just as we can see the effect of the invisible wind. we can see that the universe is governed by physical laws and we can use reason to understand that if there are laws, there must be a law maker. We can use our scientific skill to understand that the universe if made of a common set of subatomotic building blocks and we can reason that if there is order, there must be intelligence and power to keep that order. We can further reason that if this order is maintained at a universal level, then the intelligence and power of God must be infinite.

The no proof of God argument is very, very weak.

 

[AntiTheist]

I recall a very short-lived “discussion” I had with an atheist on this very topic on a secular website a while back. He asked for proof. I replied that the proof he was seeking was not the legalistic one of which we are accustomed. He then stated that my stating this did not construe a reply. End of story.

And he’s right. Evidence – let’s talk about evidence, since “proof” pertains to mathematics – necessarily is data that supports a claim.

If you don’t have data to support a claim, then you have no good reason to believe the claim.

Now, the trick is, the data you use has to be appropriate for the claim. If your claim is something about your emotional state for example – like, “I love my mom!” – then the only evidence necessary for this claim is your own observation of your emotional state. Simple.

But if your claim is about something outside of your head – like, “There is a vast conspiracy of people out to get me!” – then your observation of your paranoid emotional state is not sufficient evidence for this claim. You would need actual evidence from the world outside of your head.

Similarly, if your claim is that a disembodied supernatural being exists who intervenes in nature – and you’re claiming that this being actually exists as a separate entity, and not just as a thought in your head – then you’re going to need more evidence than the fact that you get warm and fuzzy feelings inside when you pray or that a bunch of sheep herders had some stories that they told thousands of years ago.

 

[ddarko]

And he’s right. Evidence – let’s talk about evidence, since “proof” pertains to mathematics – necessarily is data that supports a claim.

If you don’t have data to support a claim, then you have no good reason to believe the claim.

Now, the trick is, the data you use has to be appropriate for the claim. If your claim is something about your emotional state for example – like, “I love my mom!” – then the only evidence necessary for this claim is your own observation of your emotional state. Simple.

But if your claim is about something outside of your head – like, “There is a vast conspiracy of people out to get me!” – then your observation of your paranoid emotional state is not sufficient evidence for this claim. You would need actual evidence from the world outside of your head.

Similarly, if your claim is that a disembodied supernatural being exists who intervenes in nature – and you’re claiming that this being actually exists as a separate entity, and not just as a thought in your head – then you’re going to need more evidence than the fact that you get warm and fuzzy feelings inside when you pray or that a bunch of sheep herders had some stories that they told thousands of years ago.

Wow still with the evidence eh?

‘‘Properly basic beliefs’’ do not need evidence. In other lay terms, in every system of knowledge, everything originates with an acceptance without evidence of some concepts and rules. I would make the claim that God is such a necessary belief. Now the famous counter is why don’t we believe in Unicorns and flying spaghetti monster etc. The obvious answer is that its ok to believe a Unicorn exists somewhere in the Universe. But it really doesn’t have any implications for you as an individual. On the other hand, believing in God, does. Without God, nothing really matters. INCLUDING, belief WITHOUT evidence because who cares?

If you wan’t to claim otherwise, you are welcome to show why God is a logically inconsistent entity.

Secondly, if you are truly an atheist and believe that evidence is essential, why do you care? As far as you are concerned, this life is something where anything goes. There is no RIGHT and WRONG. It’s just your subjective opinion that one should live by the truth. So if we theist want to believe something without evidence, you have NO logical reason to want to stop us. Keep your subjective beliefs to yourself please… UNLESS of course you have evidence that “believing in something without evidence is objectively WRONG”.

God Bless

 

[paul_c]

And he’s right. Evidence – let’s talk about evidence, since “proof” pertains to mathematics – necessarily is data that supports a claim.

If you don’t have data to support a claim, then you have no good reason to believe the claim.

Now, the trick is, the data you use has to be appropriate for the claim. If your claim is something about your emotional state for example – like, “I love my mom!” – then the only evidence necessary for this claim is your own observation of your emotional state. Simple.

But if your claim is about something outside of your head – like, “There is a vast conspiracy of people out to get me!” – then your observation of your paranoid emotional state is not sufficient evidence for this claim. You would need actual evidence from the world outside of your head.

Similarly, if your claim is that a disembodied supernatural being exists who intervenes in nature – and you’re claiming that this being actually exists as a separate entity, and not just as a thought in your head – then you’re going to need more evidence than the fact that you get warm and fuzzy feelings inside when you pray or that a bunch of sheep herders had some stories that they told thousands of years ago.

I agree with you that if you say there’s a God, you should have some evidence of why you say that. Just be careful that you don’t discard valid evidence because it doesn’t suit your theology (or lack thereof). Let’s say that a man, after telling people for 3 years that he was the son of God and performing countless miracles in front of countless witnesses, is killed by the authorities but then rises from the dead. That would constitute proof of the existence of God to me. Now you can argue that you didn’t see it, but that’s not a very valid argument because you believe lots of things you haven’t seen. So it all comes down to the credibility of the witnesses who did see it. So don’t say there’s no evidence of the Christian God. because there clearly is. You might question its credibility but now the onus is on you to say why you don’t beleive the witnesses…

 

[AntiTheist]

Wow still with the evidence eh?

Still.

I would make the claim that God is such a necessary belief.

Necessary for what, exactly? I submit that there are plenty of us who get along just fine without that belief and that it is unnecessary.

Secondly, if you are truly an atheist and believe that evidence is essential, why do you care?

Because I happen to be interested in this subject. If I wasn’t interested in this subject, I’d be doing something else, Q.E.D.

Keep your subjective beliefs to yourself please

No.

UNLESS of course you have evidence that “believing in something without evidence is objectively WRONG”.

I don’t think it’s “objectively wrong.” I just think it’s dumb, and there’s plenty of evidence for that.

 

[AntiTheist]

I agree with you that if you say there’s a God, you should have some evidence of why you say that. Just be careful that you don’t discard valid evidence because it doesn’t suit your theology (or lack thereof).

I’m with you so far.

Let’s say that a man, after telling people for 3 years that he was the son of God and performing countless miracles in front of countless witnesses, is killed by the authorities but then rises from the dead. That would constitute proof of the existence of God to me.

I agree. But do you have any reason to think that this actually happened?

I think you’ll find, if you do any research at all, that the Gospels are anonymous stories written by non-eyewitnesses written decades (at the earliest) after supposed supernatural events that are recorded nowhere else.

I believe that lots of events happened that I wasn’t there to witness, but we have much better evidence of those other events.

 

[ddarko]

Still.

Can’t expect everyone to grow up I guess

Necessary for what, exactly? I submit that there are plenty of us who get along just fine without that belief and that it is unnecessary.

For all knowledge. For purpose. I am talking about objective purpose here and not subjective ones so don’t give me the typical atheist response of “hey I have purpose and I don’t believe in God”.

Because I happen to be interested in this subject. If I wasn’t interested in this subject, I’d be doing something else, Q.E.D.

Well thats fine but you can read it like you read the news. But you can’t pass judgement on it because there is no such thing as “right thing to do” in the atheist position.

No.

So you admit that they are subjective

I don’t think it’s “objectively wrong.” I just think it’s dumb, and there’s plenty of evidence for that.

Well if you THINK its dumb it doesn’t make it DUMB. You might be DUMB to think its DUMB. And who says being DUMB is wrong? I can’t see any EVIDENCE that being DUMB is objectively bad? Please share some evidence if you got some.

Otherwise, do keep your subjective beliefs to yourself!

God Bless

 

[paul_c]

Quote:

Originally Posted by paul c
I agree with you that if you say there’s a God, you should have some evidence of why you say that. Just be careful that you don’t discard valid evidence because it doesn’t suit your theology (or lack thereof).

Quote:
Let’s say that a man, after telling people for 3 years that he was the son of God and performing countless miracles in front of countless witnesses, is killed by the authorities but then rises from the dead. That would constitute proof of the existence of God to me.

I have lots of reasons to think this actually happened. Far more than I can get into a 6000 character post in fact.

lets start with the facts. The gospels are hardly anonymous stories. They have been ascribed to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John since the first century. John says in his Gospel that he was the Apostle John and that he was an eye witness. It is very possible but not definite that Matthew was written in Aramaic as early as the late 30s AD. Luke was likely written no later than the early 60s, since his second companion work, Acts truncates before the death of Paul in 67AD. In any case, it is clear that the Gospels were held dear to the people that had them because there are far more existant copies of them from antiquity and far less transcribing errors than any other writings of the time.
Why would they be held so early if they were simply fantasies. These gospels are also corroborated by the epistles.

Secondly, we know that the early Christians were persecuted heavily by Jews and Gentiles alike for 300 years. All of the original apostles were martyred for their faith. Why would they accept that for a lie.

Third, there have been countless miracles to demonstrate to believers and unbelievers alike that Catholic Christianity is real, right into this century. Have you read about Lourdes and Fatima. How about Padre Pio?

The list goes on but I’ll leave it here for now.