100% lack of evidence to God

[firedragon]

Expected.

Good.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I have noted a few atheists make the claim that God does not exist because there is a 100% lack of evidence. Its a very famous atheistic apologetic shared by many.

The overwhelming number of atheists I have read here on RF and elsewhere do not make the claim that gods do not exist. Most of us are agnostic atheists, that is, we recognize that deities cannot be ruled out by any test, experiment, observation, argument, or algorithm. And for that reason, when I read an atheist say that there are no gods, I reject that he has that knowledge, just as I do when a theist claims that he knows gods do exist.

Regarding evidence, the proper claim is that there is insufficient evidence to believe in gods. There is no reason to say evidence is 100% lacking. The fact that people claim to know God is weak evidence of a deity. I don't believe them, and I have a much likelier explanation for why they think that than that they are correct, but that doesn't make them wrong.

 

[Polymath257]

Thats fair based on your epistemology. But your standards should be rational. Thus, I dont mind hearing your epistemology out. What do you mean by evidence?

Evidence for a statement is an observation that increases the likelihood that statement is true. Evidence against a statement is an observation that decreases the likelihood that statement is true.

To be evidence, something has to be observable and change the probabilities (not simply be consistent with the statement).

In the PCR example, not detecting the virus decreases the probability that the virus is in the sample. And it decreases that probability significantly. So it is evidence against having the virus.

When it comes to deities, is there any observation that changes the probability either way? If not, then there cannot be evidence of deities. If there is, please present it.

 

[Polymath257]

Do you consider scriptural evidence? How could that be? Maybe I dont understand.

Give an example of 'spiritual evidence'.

 

[firedragon]

The overwhelming number of atheists I have read here on RF and elsewhere do not make the claim that gods do not exist.

Great. So this thread is addressing those who do as said.

 

[firedragon]

Give an example of 'spiritual evidence'.

I didnt say spiritual evidence. I said "scriptural evidence".

And you should ask the person spoke of scripture in the first place, not me. Please go ahead.

Thanks.

 

[firedragon]

To be evidence, something has to be observable and change the probabilities (not simply be consistent with the statement).

So what is the "Observable evidence" addressing the OP?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Very clever. You nailed it. So you come from the standard that "there is nothing". Thats your foundation.

Can you prove there is nothing? Or is that because there is no evidence?

So your circular reasoning is "there is no evidence, so there is nothing, and because there is nothing, there is no evidence"?

Well I see it directly.

Let's reverse the logic.

If you therefore see something, then why are you producing nothing to verify that particular something, and expecting a validation?

 

[firedragon]

If you therefore see something, then why are you producing nothing to verify that particular something, and expecting a validation?

What validation did I expect from you?

 

[shivsomashekhar]

@firedragon what is your take on Santa Claus?

If you disbelieve in the concept, how do you justify it?

 

[Twilight Hue]

What validation did I expect from you?

Well there are no gods around for starters. I'd say that's a pretty good factual foundation and of course, in terms of evidence, nothing as evidence speaks for itself quite well.

 

[firedragon]

@firedragon what is your take on Santa Claus?

Please open a new thread on Santa Claus and I will contribute upon your request. Its not relevant to this thread.

 

[firedragon]

Well there are no gods around for starters.

Please read the OP on that.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I have noted a few atheists make the claim that God does not exist because there is a 100% lack of evidence. Its a very famous atheistic apologetic shared by many.

I understand that lack of evidence can prove the non-existence of something. Like a PCR test for COVID 19. Its just an example.

Now for a COVID 19 test, there is a test called PCR. It is an very well defined test that is based on elimination. You eliminate the probability of having the virus infection. So that's a lack of evidence it exists in you. But this has been developed because people know the virus, it has been identified and tested by scientists, and they have developed a specific test that would eliminate it.

So I would like to ask the atheists who use this argument about theism and God. What is the test you have developed to do this elimination?

Any test would depend on the god and its attributes.

However, I'm not generally someone who says that there's no evidence for God; I generally say that the evidence for God is poor and that the evidence against God is more compelling.

... but in discussions like this, I think it's important to spell out exactly what we mean by "evidence," because otherwise people will end up talking past each other.

In one approach, "evidence" is any fact that supports a premise that's required to conclude that God exists (or some other conclusion). In this view, there's plenty of evidence for any conclusion, including that God exists (and that God doesn't exist, and all sorts of absurd claims). Edit: for instance, the fact that the sky is blue is evidence for fairies, since it's a necessary premise for the argument that fairies paint tbe sky blue with magic paintbrushes.

OTOH, we could also consider "evidence for God" in terms of facts that support concluding the existence of God as opposed to some other conclusion. In this approach, the question of what constitutes evidence depends on what problem you're trying to solve by invoking God. For instance, if you're arguing that God is the cause of the universe, any fact that can be reconciled with the hypothesis that God didn't create the universe is not evidence for God.

... so maybe define our terms before we get fully into this.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

Please open a new thread on Santa Claus and I will contribute upon your request. Its not relevant to this thread.

It is relevant. It is the exact same logic. The reasons for denying Santa Claus apply to God too and answers your OP.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Please open a new thread on Santa Claus and I will contribute upon your request. Its not relevant to this thread.

You don't see the relevance? Here you go:

Exploring our standards of evidence for something we aren't emotionally invested in (e.g. the existence of Santa) can help to illuminate what those standards are. This will then let us apply those standards in a more clear-headed way to the question in the OP, which is one where many people's judgment (on either side) can get clouded by emotion.

 

[Altfish]

I have noted a few atheists make the claim that God does not exist because there is a 100% lack of evidence. Its a very famous atheistic apologetic shared by many.

I understand that lack of evidence can prove the non-existence of something. Like a PCR test for COVID 19. Its just an example.

Now for a COVID 19 test, there is a test called PCR. It is an very well defined test that is based on elimination. You eliminate the probability of having the virus infection. So that's a lack of evidence it exists in you. But this has been developed because people know the virus, it has been identified and tested by scientists, and they have developed a specific test that would eliminate it.

So I would like to ask the atheists who use this argument about theism and God. What is the test you have developed to do this elimination?

Firstly, your statement "...atheists make the claim that God does not exist because there is a 100% lack of evidence.", is something I have never heard made. I have consistently said something like, "I do not believe in god because I can find no evidence that she exists". Nowhere do I state 100%, or claim that there are not other avenues that I might be persuaded to explore.
But I have read much of the Bible, prayed to god, been to church every week in my youth and still no sign or evidence of a god.
Because god is allegedly "supernatural" science cannot detect her, science can only explain the natural world, like Covid Testing.

Could you suggest a test that I can try that will reveal god to even the most skeptical atheist?

 

[Audie]

Please open a new thread on Santa Claus and I will contribute upon your request. Its not relevant to this thread.

Its exactly relevant

 

[KW]

I have noted a few atheists make the claim that God does not exist because there is a 100% lack of evidence. Its a very famous atheistic apologetic shared by many.

I understand that lack of evidence can prove the non-existence of something. Like a PCR test for COVID 19. Its just an example.

Now for a COVID 19 test, there is a test called PCR. It is an very well defined test that is based on elimination. You eliminate the probability of having the virus infection. So that's a lack of evidence it exists in you. But this has been developed because people know the virus, it has been identified and tested by scientists, and they have developed a specific test that would eliminate it.

So I would like to ask the atheists who use this argument about theism and God. What is the test you have developed to do this elimination?

Existence is evidence for God.

In order for anything to exist, something must be eternal.

 

[Audie]

Existence is evidence for God.

In order for anything to exist, something must be eternal.

Around here, such arbitrary and meaningless claims dont get a lot of traction.