What do Atheists mean about ‘No Evidence for God’

[Man of Faith]

When an Atheist says “I am an Atheist because there is no evidence for God”, what do they mean? We have the world, life, consciousness, love, information, the ability to talk, think, and have morals. That all had to come from somewhere. The reality is 80% of the world believes in God, so the world we see and touch must have some inherent evidence built into it. For example when we see a painting we know there must be a painter so naturally when we see the world we know there must be a creator.

I suspect what they mean is God hasn’t stood in front of them and spoke directly to them or that they can’t see God with their eyes. Yet they believe in evolution, most of them which they can’t see happening, they rely on forensic science not observable science for that, why not rely on forensic science for the evidence for God? The earth and life is the evidence.

 

[Madhuri]

When an Atheist says “I am an Atheist because there is no evidence for God”, what do they mean? We have the world, life, consciousness, love, information, the ability to talk, think, and have morals. That all had to come from somewhere. The reality is 80% of the world believes in God, so the world we see and touch must have some inherent evidence built into it. For example when we see a painting we know there must be a painter so naturally when we see the world we know there must be a creator.

I suspect what they mean is God hasn’t stood in front of them and spoke directly to them or that they can’t see God with their eyes. Yet they believe in evolution, most of them which they can’t see happening, they rely on forensic science not observable science for that, why not rely on forensic science for the evidence for God? The earth and life is the evidence.

First I want to state that I am a theist.
But I understand the atheist argument and I'm sympathetic of it.

You said: "We have the world, life, consciousness, love, information, the ability to talk, think, and have morals. That all had to come from somewhere."

I disagree. If God, which represents all these things (love, consciousness etc) can exist without a cause then these things can exist without a cause.

You said: "The reality is 80% of the world believes in God, so the world we see and touch must have some inherent evidence built into it."

I disagree. There are many factors that influence the percentage of people who are theistic. Most people in the world are blind believers, adopting the faith of their ancestors. As the world is becoming more educated, more and more people are turning away from religion.

You said: "The earth and life is the evidence."

I disagree. The earth and life is evidence of the earth and life, not of a God. Like I said, if God can exist independently of a cause, than so can the things he represents (like life).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

When an Atheist says “I am an Atheist because there is no evidence for God”, what do they mean?

I don't personally say this. I say that the in the balance of evidence for God vs. evidence against God, the balance tips toward "no God".

We have the world, life, consciousness, love, information, the ability to talk, think, and have morals. That all had to come from somewhere.

But there's no good reason to necessarily assume that they came from God.

IMO, you're approaching this reasoning backward. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you believed in God before you started asking yourself about where these things came from, right?

The reality is 80% of the world believes in God, so the world we see and touch must have some inherent evidence built into it.

No, they don't. Most people believe in some sort of god, but the majority of the people on Earth agree with me that your God doesn't exist.

For example when we see a painting we know there must be a painter so naturally when we see the world we know there must be a creator.

We can recognize a painting (and therefore infer a painter) because we can distinguish it from non-painted things. How would a person go about distinguishing something created by God from something that wasn't?

I suspect what they mean is God hasn’t stood in front of them and spoke directly to them or that they can’t see God with their eyes.

No... I don't think it's that it.

I think they mean that the evidence in the natural world by itself isn't a reasonable justification for God.

Out of curiosity, do you know anyone who actually became a theist because of the First Cause argument, appeals to popularity, or the teleological argument?

Yet they believe in evolution, most of them which they can’t see happening, they rely on forensic science not observable science for that, why not rely on forensic science for the evidence for God? The earth and life is the evidence.

No, they're really not.

 

[Revoltingest]

When an Atheist says “I am an Atheist because there is no evidence for God”, what do they mean? We have the world, life, consciousness, love, information, the ability to talk, think, and have morals. That all had to come from somewhere.

There's no reason to ditch natural explanations. As I view it, people are quick to leap to easy answers to things.
The material world is complicated, & doesn't let us understand it easily. Moreover, some phenomena (eg, the
big bang) might never yield their nature to scientific inquiry. But we ought not invent magical explanations just
because we want some explanation.

The reality is 80% of the world believes in God, so the world we see and touch must have some inherent evidence built into it.

I see an inherent need to believe, rather than inherent evidence.

For example when we see a painting we know there must be a painter so naturally when we see the world we know there must be a creator.

But a painting is different from cosmology & evolution, since evidence clearly shows that they result from artists painting.
The formation of stellar objects & evolution are emergent processes of stochastic processes. Abiogenesis is the trickier
one, since it hasn't yet been observed.

I suspect what they mean is God hasn’t stood in front of them and spoke directly to them or that they can’t see God with their eyes.

That's not my meaning.
Although it is a problem for religions to claim that their god communicates with them only in ways immune to objective observation.

Yet they believe in evolution, most of them which they can’t see happening, they rely on forensic science not observable science....

Many aspects of evolution are currently observable. You may do a quick search of the internet to find examples.

....for that, why not rely on forensic science for the evidence for God?

Sure....what evidence?

 

[Eliot Wild]

Good question. What the hell is up with these freakin' atheists? Are they crazy? Always asking for evidence and proof, with their danged reasoning and logic and staunch refusals to act on suppositions, speculations, conjecture, folktales, myth, legends and blind faith. They're nuts, I say, absolutely nuts.

I mean, seriously, who wouldn't believe that a naked chick and a talking snake tried to pull a fast one on an omnipresent, omniscient god and got caught. Of course they got caught, He is God, by the freakin' way. Like, he wasn't going to find out . . . eventually. Pshaw, Atheists . . . I can't stand 'em. They're just so dang reasonable.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

If there was evidence for God, every rational person would have to intellectually assent to God's existence.

And there would be no place for faith, hope, or love.

 

[Willamena]

If there was evidence for God, every rational person would have to intellectually assent to God's existence.

And there would be no place for faith, hope, or love.

Don't get started on the "what ifs..." We'll have people spouting off on the glory of a hopefree world.

 

[tumbleweed41]

The necessity of God for the things mentioned in the OP is not evident.

 

[waitasec]

When an Atheist says “I am an Atheist because there is no evidence for God”, what do they mean? We have the world, life, consciousness, love, information, the ability to talk, think, and have morals. That all had to come from somewhere. The reality is 80% of the world believes in God, so the world we see and touch must have some inherent evidence built into it. For example when we see a painting we know there must be a painter so naturally when we see the world we know there must be a creator.

I suspect what they mean is God hasn’t stood in front of them and spoke directly to them or that they can’t see God with their eyes. Yet they believe in evolution, most of them which they can’t see happening, they rely on forensic science not observable science for that, why not rely on forensic science for the evidence for God? The earth and life is the evidence.

lets see,
if we knew then what we know now
we wouldn't have a need to create a god that explained the unknown.
there was a time when we thought we were the center of everything...wrong
we thought the sun revolved around the earth, we thought the earth was flat
we didn't know about the micro organisms that could destroy the human species...

 

[EtuMalku]

Christianty makes up about 33% of the world, Islam 21%, and non-religious around16%

1. Christianity: 2.1 billion
   
2. Islam: 1.5 billion
   
3. Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: 1.1 billion

I don't deny that there exists a natural ordering to the Universe, and that 'we' have personified this as a Divine Creator. But, that is all it is, an archetypal image that 'we' created in order to explain things that seem superhuman/supernatural to us (science makes folly of this on a regular basis as it strives to explain the inexplicable).

I see the act of Creation to be 'outside' of this natural ordering/Divinity and to be the True governing force in all of the Universe.

 

[Tristesse]

When an Atheist says “I am an Atheist because there is no evidence for God”, what do they mean? We have the world, life, consciousness, love, information, the ability to talk, think, and have morals. That all had to come from somewhere. The reality is 80% of the world believes in God, so the world we see and touch must have some inherent evidence built into it. For example when we see a painting we know there must be a painter so naturally when we see the world we know there must be a creator.

I suspect what they mean is God hasn’t stood in front of them and spoke directly to them or that they can’t see God with their eyes. Yet they believe in evolution, most of them which they can’t see happening, they rely on forensic science not observable science for that, why not rely on forensic science for the evidence for God? The earth and life is the evidence.

The world is evidence of the world, not how it came to be. Your second argument about how 80% of people believe in a god, this is an argument from population, and we know this to be false. Beause at one time almost everyone beleived the earth was flat. It doesn't matter how many people beleive something, that doesn't make it true. Your third point about when we see a painting we know there is a painter, well, we know the painting had a painter not because of how complex the painting is or anything like that. We know the painting had a painter because every example of a painting we have, comes from a painter, and we have no examples of paintings occurring naturally. The occurring naturally is the key here, humans, trees, these things occur naturally. You're making a category error. Your last point is a non sequitor, evolution and a rejection of god beliefs are not the same thing. There are many people who believe in a god or gods and accept evolution, mainly because it's a demonstrable fact. I don't believe in god because there isn't any good evidence to do so. And just like you've shown here, nothing you've presenting is evidence for anything, particularly a god who loves and cares about his creation.

 

[jmvizanko]

If the universe had to be created then why didn't god as well? Either way something exists from nothing, or instead of something else. Unless you believe in an infinite stack of tortoises.

And we have completely natural explanations for all the things you mentioned that you claim need a supernatural cause.

 

[Alceste]

I don't believe in your god because all the evidence in the natural world indicates he does not exist, at least not as described by your religion, not because there is "no evidence". There's tonnes of evidence that the magical deeds you ascribe to divinity have arisen naturally, and I am the inquisitive sort so I have gotten to know it quite well.

 

[gnomon]

When an Atheist says “I am an Atheist because there is no evidence for God”, what do they mean? We have the world, life, consciousness, love, information, the ability to talk, think, and have morals. That all had to come from somewhere. The reality is 80% of the world believes in God, so the world we see and touch must have some inherent evidence built into it. For example when we see a painting we know there must be a painter so naturally when we see the world we know there must be a creator.

I suspect what they mean is God hasn’t stood in front of them and spoke directly to them or that they can’t see God with their eyes. Yet they believe in evolution, most of them which they can’t see happening, they rely on forensic science not observable science for that, why not rely on forensic science for the evidence for God? The earth and life is the evidence.

What God?

Go see EtuMalku's posts about people mentioning God without defining what they are talking about.

Just stating you do or don't believe in God doesn't mean anything. What God are you talking about? Even the "idea of God" doesn't mean much of anything.

Frankly, the only common assumption when someone merely mentions God, or god, is that they are talking about something ineffable and unprovable. The only common concept among multiple cultures is the idea of creator wrapped up in God. Although the God people worship doesn't have to be the creator, people can believe in a creator but not in divine interference in human affairs (non-faithful deism) or some other number of things. This use of pulling out the creator aspect common to multiple God definitions to use against the atheist is nothing more than equivocation when it's quite clear that you don't believe in the majority of Gods, even other Christian ones, defined by the various cultures.

The statement "the majority of people on this planet do not believe in a God" makes more sense when equivocating with God than your assertion that the majority of people believe in God.

 

[HonestJoe]

We have the world, life, consciousness, love, information, the ability to talk, think, and have morals. That all had to come from somewhere.

I agree. We don't know where though. I know of nothing clearly pointing to an inteligent creator of any kind, let alone specifically God.

The reality is 80% of the world believes in God, so the world we see and touch must have some inherent evidence built into it.

Almost 80% of drivers in the UK think their driving ability is above average. People are perfectly capable of believing things that aren't true.

I suspect what they mean is God hasn’t stood in front of them and spoke directly to them or that they can’t see God with their eyes.

Well, in my case at least, your suspicion is simply wrong.

Yet they believe in evolution, most of them which they can’t see happening, they rely on forensic science not observable science for that, why not rely on forensic science for the evidence for God? The earth and life is the evidence.

It really isn't. As you said further up, all we know is that they had to come from somewhere. You're free to present actual evidence for what that "somewhere" is but you've not do so yet.

 

[Autodidact]

When an Atheist says “I am an Atheist because there is no evidence for God”, what do they mean? We have the world, life, consciousness, love, information, the ability to talk, think, and have morals.

I don't know what other Atheists mean. What I mean is:
(1) None of those are evidence for God, unless, as religionists often do, you assume your conclusion.
(2) In general, science provides better explanations for these things than a hypothetical being. Science also explains why we are prone to accept invisible beings as an explanation.

That all had to come from somewhere.

This is wrong in so many ways:
(1) We don't know that. It looks to me like matter/energy is always conserved, that is, everything in the universe is just constant re-arrangement, not true creation. Again, science explains the patterns of rearrangement better than magic.
(2) It doesn't follow that God made it. Even if you think it came from somewhere, we have no idea what that somewhere is.
(3) As I'm sure has been pointed out to you, your argument contradicts itself. If it had to come from somewhere, then so did God. If God didn't, then neither did the universe. As soon as your argument contradicts itself, you have failed, and should discard that argument.

The reality is 80% of the world believes in God,

Another dumb argument. First, it's a fallacy ad populum. We all know that 80% of the world is capable of being mistaken. Second, 80% of the world believes that your particular God does not exist. Does that do anything to persuade you that is true? If not, why would you expect it to persuade anyone else? You just contradicted yourself again.

so the world we see and touch must have some inherent evidence built into it. For example when we see a painting we know there must be a painter so naturally when we see the world we know there must be a creator.

And how do you know the world is like a painting? When we see a painting, we know there's a blank canvas underneath. Does it follow that the world has a blank canvas underneath? You would need to establish that the world is like a painting. Again, you assumed your conclusion.

I suspect what they mean is God hasn’t stood in front of them and spoke directly to them or that they can’t see God with their eyes.

Sort of. Nor has anyone else, ever, nor can anyone else, nor can they hear, feel, smell or taste God. God is defined as a being who cannot be perceived. For me "unable to be perceived" is synonymous with "non-existent."

Yet they believe in evolution, most of them which they can’t see happening, they rely on forensic science not observable science for that, why not rely on forensic science for the evidence for God?

You just failed spectacularly. Don't you know science cannot detect God? I say that's because there is no such thing; educated religionists say it's because He's supernatural. Either way, if you rely on science for evidence of God, clearly God does not exist. Oh, and btw, evolution relies on observable science, the same kind of science as everything else. Do you reject science?

The earth and life is the evidence.

So you say, but you have no argument to show this. You are merely assuming it.

You can't get from "we have no idea" to "God must have magicked it." It's an argument from ignorance, God of the Gaps, non-argument.

 

[Magic Man]

When an Atheist says “I am an Atheist because there is no evidence for God”, what do they mean? We have the world, life, consciousness, love, information, the ability to talk, think, and have morals. That all had to come from somewhere.

Sure, but they didn't have to come from God. What we mean when we say there's no evidence for God is...there's no evidence for God. It's at least as likely that those things came about without a god. If God was the only possible explanation for those things, or even the most probable one, then they could be considered evidence for him.

The reality is 80% of the world believes in God, so the world we see and touch must have some inherent evidence built into it. For example when we see a painting we know there must be a painter so naturally when we see the world we know there must be a creator.

No. The fact that a majority of the world believes in a god doesn't mean there is inherent evidence of such a thing. It just means a majority of the world believes in a god. They don't even believe in the same god. The versions of god that those people believe in are wildly different.

And hasn't anyone debunked the painting/painter example for you before? When we see a painting we know there was a painter for it because we've seen people paint pictures. We know how paintings are created and that they are created by people with paint. We've never seen God nor seen someone create a universe. There is nothing about the universe that requires it to have been created by some being.

I suspect what they mean is God hasn’t stood in front of them and spoke directly to them or that they can’t see God with their eyes. Yet they believe in evolution, most of them which they can’t see happening, they rely on forensic science not observable science for that, why not rely on forensic science for the evidence for God? The earth and life is the evidence.

The earth and life are not evidence of God. They are only evidence of the earth and life. Yes, God hasn't stood directly in front of us and we haven't seen him. That's part of the problem, but there's just no evidence aside from that either. We don't believe in evolution; we accept it. That's because of the massive amounts of evidence for it. All science is observable science. If it's not observable, it's not evidence. It's usually best to at least attempt to understand something before coming to the conclusion that it's false.

 

[bhaktajan]

I don't know what other Atheists mean. What I mean is:
(1) None of those are evidence for God, unless, as religionists often do, you assume your conclusion.
(2) In general, science provides better explanations for these things than a hypothetical being. Science also explains why we are prone to accept invisible beings as an explanation.

1] All knowledge is handed down from above:

"None of those are evidence for WHO MY FATHER IS, unless, as commonsense often do, you assume your MOTHER INFORMED YOU TRUTHFULLY."

2] All knowledge is handed down from above:

Similar to a Professor's declaration:
"Science provides better explanations for COOKING RECIPES & ENGINEERING FORMULAS than a hypothetical being.
Science also explains why we are prone to accept PATENTED INVENTIONS as the sole proprietory property of the Inventor."

 

[Revoltingest]

1] All knowledge is handed down from above:

"None of those are evidence for WHO MY FATHER IS, unless, as commonsense often do, you assume your MOTHER INFORMED YOU TRUTHFULLY."

2] All knowledge is handed down from above:

Similar to a Professor's declaration:
"Science provides better explanations for COOKING RECIPES & ENGINEERING FORMULAS than a hypothetical being.
Science also explains why we are prone to accept PATENTED INVENTIONS as the sole proprietory property of the Inventor."

Your point #1 looks awfully similar to point #2

 

[ellenjanuary]

When an Atheist says “I am an Atheist because there is no evidence for God”, what do they mean?

It means that they haven't met me.

I mean, I am a walking, talking (and sometimes even coherent), breathing piece of evidence for god. But, of course; I'm not evidence of religion. Is that what you mean?