Evidence there is no god

[Mr. Scott]

I know we always say here "you can't prove a negative" and "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," but I'm following a thought process that I need help with, to go further, or to kill off.

I recently suggested that the recent fight between Christian sects in Jerusalem was evidence of god's absence, because there never seems to be any input from god that any belief about him is correct.

Then there's the Templeton study that found intercessory prayer didn't help heart patients at all, and actually hurt them if they knew they were being prayed for.

Then Tebow was abandoned by Jesus on Christmas day in front of millions.

Perry's prayers for rain went unanswered.

More and better examples are invited.

I know that both skeptics and believers will talk around these by saying things like, only in the Templeton study was the effect of prayer absent, god refuses to be tested so he can only be believed on faith, etc., etc.

When pressed, all believers in god end up with no evidence of any god except for their testimony of what's only happening only in their brains.

An analogy: I show evidence there's no air in a tire by showing the zero on a pressure gauge. Evidence of absence. Every time a gauge is used to test god, it registers zero. Why isn't this evidence of god's nonexistence?

Help me out here. I'm open minded in either direction. I'm not asking for evidence that god is real. I'm asking for evidence he isn't, and if this is an impossible request.

 

[Kahalachan]

I know we always say here "you can't prove a negative" and "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," but I'm following a thought process that I need help with, to go further, or to kill off.

I recently suggested that the recent fight between Christian sects in Jerusalem was evidence of god's absence, because there never seems to be any input from god that any belief about him is correct.

Then there's the Templeton study that found intercessory prayer didn't help heart patients at all, and actually hurt them if they knew they were being prayed for.

Then Tebow was abandoned by Jesus on Christmas day in front of millions.

Perry's prayers for rain went unanswered.

More and better examples are invited.

I know that both skeptics and believers will talk around these by saying things like, only in the Templeton study was the effect of prayer absent, god refuses to be tested so he can only be believed on faith, etc., etc.

When pressed, all believers in god end up with no evidence of any god except for their testimony of what's only happening only in their brains.

An analogy: I show evidence there's no air in a tire by showing the zero on a pressure gauge. Evidence of absence. Every time a gauge is used to test god, it registers zero. Why isn't this evidence of god's nonexistence?

Help me out here. I'm open minded in either direction. I'm not asking for evidence that god is real. I'm asking for evidence he isn't, and if this is an impossible request.

Using your analogy isn't that specifically air pressure you're measuring? So there's no air pressure but there's still air.

People will use the same reasoning for god. God's simply not "putting pressure" or acting but god still exists.

The prayer studies more specifically prove that god doesn't simply act as our personal butler and do anything we ask. They don't specifically prove an absence of a god.

Because no one has clearly defined the criteria in which you can disprove god the way we have clearly defined what pressure is and how it's measured, you really can't run a test to disprove god.

And if someone does come up with a way to measure god, it's that person's interpretation of god that you're disproving, not every single possible notion and interpretation of god there is.

So yeah..........it's pretty much impossible to disprove but that doesn't keep a lack of belief in a god from being the most rational position.

 

[David Swidler]

It's sort-of impossible. Basically it depends on the audience.

Some people will take absence of evidence as evidence of absence, and in some cases, such as the tire pressure gauge, as you point out, that's an eminently reasonable conclusion. But open the can of worms that is the debate over free will and all that goes out the window. To wit: revealing himself would negate mankind's free will, and God prefers that any relationship with him be volitional. In other words, the detector is manufactured to register zero no matter what, because the alternative would not serve the overall purpose.

 

[Mr. Scott]

Using your analogy isn't that specifically air pressure you're measuring? So there's no air pressure but there's still air.

Thanks for your reply.

You know I meant air pressure. "No air" is a figure of speech. The semantic quibble doesn't change the analogy. Indeed, if you want to get sciency, there's still air pressure in a flat tire -- it's just equal, for all intents and purposes, to pressure outside the tire.

So, a gauge will tell me there is absence of air pressure in the tire greater than ambient pressure. The analogy stands. God's tire is 100% flat.

 

[joesixpack]

I know we always say here "you can't prove a negative" and "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," but I'm following a thought process that I need help with, to go further, or to kill off.

I recently suggested that the recent fight between Christian sects in Jerusalem was evidence of god's absence, because there never seems to be any input from god that any belief about him is correct.

Then there's the Templeton study that found intercessory prayer didn't help heart patients at all, and actually hurt them if they knew they were being prayed for.

Then Tebow was abandoned by Jesus on Christmas day in front of millions.

Perry's prayers for rain went unanswered.

More and better examples are invited.

I know that both skeptics and believers will talk around these by saying things like, only in the Templeton study was the effect of prayer absent, god refuses to be tested so he can only be believed on faith, etc., etc.

When pressed, all believers in god end up with no evidence of any god except for their testimony of what's only happening only in their brains.

An analogy: I show evidence there's no air in a tire by showing the zero on a pressure gauge. Evidence of absence. Every time a gauge is used to test god, it registers zero. Why isn't this evidence of god's nonexistence?

Help me out here. I'm open minded in either direction. I'm not asking for evidence that god is real. I'm asking for evidence he isn't, and if this is an impossible request.

Your argument rests on the assumption that the only possible god is the one described by fundamentalist Christians. The lack of belief in the anthropomorphic god described in the Bible is hardly worthy of the term "Atheism".

 

[Mr. Scott]

It's sort-of impossible. Basically it depends on the audience.

Some people will take absence of evidence as evidence of absence, and in some cases, such as the tire pressure gauge, as you point out, that's an eminently reasonable conclusion. But open the can of worms that is the debate over free will and all that goes out the window. To wit: revealing himself would negate mankind's free will, and God prefers that any relationship with him be volitional. In other words, the detector is manufactured to register zero no matter what, because the alternative would not serve any purpose.

What about the miracles in the Bible? Nobody was asked to take them on faith. Talking snake, staff turned into snake, pillar of fire, burning talking bush, wife turned into pillar of salt, water into wine, oil lamp staying on longer than expected, walking on water, virgin birth, resurrection, and on and on. God's tire gauge was working fine in Bible days. What happened?

 

[Crossbow]

I always liked the way that Richard Dawkins explained, which was (to paraphrase):

The God of the Old Testament was powerful and micromanging. People saw this God, talked to it, and interacted with it.

However, all of our great tools of science have failed to find anything of the sort; therefore if there is a God, then it must be quite distant and quite unpowerful.

Therefore, it is not a God at all.

So, instead of trying to use facts and events as proof of the existence of God, use logic to show how God cannot exist.

I hope this helps!

 

[Mr. Scott]

Your argument rests on the assumption that the only possible god is the one described by fundamentalist Christians. The lack of belief in the anthropomorphic god described in the Bible is hardly worthy of the term "Atheism".

The fundy's god is just the best example. It seems there's still a reading of zero for any imaginable god that isn't totally silly.

 

[TimCallahan]

I used to be a theistic evolutionist. I saw a reflection of the divine in a teleological view of evolving complexity. Of course, the God I believed in was rather deist: He didn't make much of a demand on my life other than an expectation that I was to act ethically.

What pretty well ended my admittedly fading belief in God was knowledge of earth's chaotic geological history and, particularly, the record of repeated mass extinctions. In a way, this involves proving or disproving a positive: What would we expect in a universe ruled by a benevolent, logical God. If what we expect isn't there, that tends to demonstrate an absence of a deity.

 

[Mr. Scott]

I always liked the way that Richard Dawkins explained, which was (to paraphrase):

The God of the Old Testament was powerful and micromanging. People saw this God, talked to it, and interacted with it.

However, all of our great tools of science have failed to find anythign of the sort; therefore if there is a God, then it must be quite distant and quite unpowerful.

Therefore, it is not a God at all.

So, instead of trying to use facts and events as proof of the existence of God, use logic to show how God cannot exist.

I hope this helps!

It does help. A god so feeble he is utterly undetectable is hardly a god.

 

[slingblade]

It's sort-of impossible. Basically it depends on the audience.

Some people will take absence of evidence as evidence of absence, and in some cases, such as the tire pressure gauge, as you point out, that's an eminently reasonable conclusion. But open the can of worms that is the debate over free will and all that goes out the window. To wit: revealing himself would negate mankind's free will, and God prefers that any relationship with him be volitional. In other words, the detector is manufactured to register zero no matter what, because the alternative would not serve any purpose.

The free will argument is bogus, anyway. Although you may already know that.

If any relationship with god is supposed to be volitional, then wherefore hell? When I told my kids to clean their room or get a spanking, it wasn't a choice. It was a threat. I never held any illusions they cleaned their rooms as an act of volition. They did it to avoid punishment.

Your will cannot be considered "free" when you act under duress.

 

[Leumas]

I know we always say here "you can't prove a negative" and "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," but I'm following a thought process that I need help with, to go further, or to kill off.

I recently suggested that the recent fight between Christian sects in Jerusalem was evidence of god's absence, because there never seems to be any input from god that any belief about him is correct.

Then there's the Templeton study that found intercessory prayer didn't help heart patients at all, and actually hurt them if they knew they were being prayed for.

Then Tebow was abandoned by Jesus on Christmas day in front of millions.
Perry's prayers for rain went unanswered.

More and better examples are invited.

I know that both skeptics and believers will talk around these by saying things like, only in the Templeton study was the effect of prayer absent, god refuses to be tested so he can only be believed on faith, etc., etc.

When pressed, all believers in god end up with no evidence of any god except for their testimony of what's only happening only in their brains.

An analogy: I show evidence there's no air in a tire by showing the zero on a pressure gauge. Evidence of absence. Every time a gauge is used to test god, it registers zero. Why isn't this evidence of god's nonexistence?

Help me out here. I'm open minded in either direction. I'm not asking for evidence that god is real. I'm asking for evidence he isn't, and if this is an impossible request.

Who is Tebow?


All the above could be used as a compelling argument against the likelihood of a Christian god.....only.

Perry prayed to Jesus.....so not rain COULD mean no Jesus.

Of course if it rains a year from now he would tell you Jesus did it but the telegram got delayed on the way...

Absence of evidence IS evidence of absence...... it is just not CONCLUSIVE evidence of absence.

Most people would take it for granted that unless you can show that Elves exist then it is quite reasonable to assume that they don't.

But when it comes to god they forgo reasoning and logic.

However, you really cannot decisively prove that there is no god. Nevertheless that does not mean that you can assume one exists just because you have not proven it does NOT exist. The onus of proof is on the contender of the existence not on the person who is waiting for the proof.

Notice what I said here.... I did not say "the denier of the existence".

We do not deny the existence of gods....... we are just not willing to assume they do exist without any evidence. We are WAITING for the evidence. Until one is given we will assume the only LOGICAL stance…. it does not exist so far.

Additionally, since we have been waiting for this evidence for thousands of years so far then it is again LOGICAL to conclude that the probability for this evidence to be forthcoming is almost zero.

Of course there is no accounting for the casuistry, warping and contortions that theists are able to go through combined with the mental pirouettes and acrobatics to arrive at all sorts of ILLOGIC.

 

[joesixpack]

The fundy's god is just the best example.

No it's not

It seems there's still a reading of zero for any imaginable god that isn't totally silly.

You should really read something from a modern theologian rather than the crap from Pat Robertson if you want to understand the actual concept of god that most serious Christians hold. Otherwise you may as well be arguing against the existence of Santa Clause.

 

[David Swidler]

What about the miracles in the Bible? Nobody was asked to take them on faith. Talking snake, staff turned into snake, pillar of fire, burning talking bush, wife turned into pillar of salt, water into wine, oil lamp staying on longer than expected, walking on water, virgin birth, resurrection, and on and on. God's tire gauge was working fine in Bible days. What happened?

I guess you DO mean the God of the Bible. We can work with that, but it won't satisfy the global question to everyone's satisfaction.

The short answer is that the relationship has evolved. Back in Biblical times human civilization was young, and like a child, was better off with a pronounced "parental" presence. But that gradually changed even through Biblical times (Moses's prophecy was "face-to-face," but fast forward to Esther, and God is conspicuously absent in the explicit narrative). A parent tries to get the child to mature, to show independence. We view with suspicion a parent who forces his or herself into the life a grown-up child. The child has to want it, as well.

 

[Kahalachan]

Thanks for your reply.

You know I meant air pressure. "No air" is a figure of speech. The semantic quibble doesn't change the analogy. Indeed, if you want to get sciency, there's still air pressure in a flat tire -- it's just equal, for all intents and purposes, to pressure outside the tire.

So, a gauge will tell me there is absence of air pressure in the tire greater than ambient pressure. The analogy stands. God's tire is 100% flat.

But there's also the problem that air pressure is a physical constant. The notion behind god is that god acts on choice and god knows best when to act.

So for whatever odd reason, god saw fit to do these amazing miracles 2,000 years ago but never again in modern times.

To give an analogy suppose you sat me down for an IQ test but I simply refused to pick up a pencil or participate whatsoever. I guess that makes my IQ zero, but can anyone honestly say that's true?

In before any smartass replies about how it is.

But that's sort of what would be going on. Having a sentient being participate in some kind of test with that being not willing to. In all studies of human behavior some observation is required (impossible with an invisible god) or some kind of participation (which is again practically impossible since god allegedly acts whenever god feels like it).

So we can prove god never acts and then question why believe in something that has never acted by interfering with the physical world beyond how it normally operates, but not really disprove the non-acting god.

*shrugs* Really that's the best we can do.

 

[Daald]

I think the problem is that of definition. The term God basically stands in for anything. We have pretty much abandoned all properties we assign to such a term to the point it is meaningless. So when someone says "God" the next question should be "how does this thing interact with the world that is distinguishable from randomness". Those can then be tested and disproved. In the end you are wasting your time proving wrong imaginings that people have of a vague word.

 

[Mr. Scott]

I guess you DO mean the God of the Bible. We can work with that, but it won't satisfy the global question to everyone's satisfaction.

The short answer is that the relationship has evolved. Back in Biblical times human civilization was young, and like a child, was better off with a pronounced "parental" presence. But that gradually changed even through Biblical times (Moses's prophecy was "face-to-face," but fast forward to Esther, and God is conspicuously absent in the explicit narrative). A parent tries to get the child to mature, to show independence. We view with suspicion a parent who forces his or herself into the life a grown-up child. The child has to want it, as well.

It's Bible thumpers who also say we have to take god's existence on faith, yet there are miracles throughout it that didn't have to be taken on faith. Something of a contradiction. It's just a good example. The gods not of the Bible are awfully squirrely to never leave any evidence of their existence.

 

[slingblade]

I guess you DO mean the God of the Bible. We can work with that, but it won't satisfy the global question to everyone's satisfaction.

The short answer is that the relationship has evolved. Back in Biblical times human civilization was young, and like a child, was better off with a pronounced "parental" presence. But that gradually changed even through Biblical times (Moses's prophecy was "face-to-face," but fast forward to Esther, and God is conspicuously absent in the explicit narrative). A parent tries to get the child to mature, to show independence. We view with suspicion a parent who forces his or herself into the life a grown-up child. The child has to want it, as well.

The difference being, we know our parents exist, and yet that doesn't stop people from rejecting their parents, disowning them, entirely.

So again, wherefore hell, and why bother hiding from us? If god is real, he should show himself. We can decide if he's worth following or not, just as we can decide if our parents are abusive gits who don't deserve the time of day from us.

 

[Leumas]

*shrugs* Really that's the best we can do.

We can do a little better..... we can say that the default hypothesis is that something does not exist unless you can prove that it exists.

Just because our minds can imagine something does not in any way make it more likely to exist.

I can imagine a three headed flying horse with hooves of gold and wings like those of bees.

Does that mean that there is a possibility for such a creature to exist even though no one can prove it does not and no one can prove it does?

Of course not..... the same should apply to god.

 

[Resume]

No it's not

You should really read something from a modern theologian rather than the crap from Pat Robertson if you want to understand the actual concept of god that most serious Christians hold. Otherwise you may as well be arguing against the existence of Santa Clause.

How many serious christians do you speak for?