Evidence God Does Not Exist

[Paul the Human]

The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.

Precisely.

[Minimalist]

The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.

One quibble, albeit a major one, with this mantra.

It's wrong.


The absence of evidence is, most assuredly, evidence of absence. It is not "proof" of absence. Especially in archaeology, the next shovel in the ground can overturn all previous finds.

However, when someone like Kenneth Kitchen trots this out it is an apologetic mode to explain why his bible fantasies cannot be sustained by archaeology. The bible claims that Jerusalem was a major city in the 10th century under David and Solomon - the seat of a far flung empire. 150 years of archaeological excavation on the site has failed to show any evidence of such a city. In fact, the only evidence that is "absent" is the evidence that people like Kitchen...and your garden variety fundie morons, insist is there. Archaeology has shown Jerusalem to be a miniscule shithole in the 10th century. This is not an absence of evidence.....it is evidence which contradicts the stated view of the bible-thumpers. Might evidence be found of the capitol of a major empire? It might. I'm not about to hold my breath waiting. In places in Jerusalem they have dug down to neolithic levels complete with flint tools. In other places they are down to bedrock. Every culture which had an impact on the area has been identified EXCEPT the one that the bible-thumpers swear is true because it is in their big book of holy horseshit.

They sit smugly and say "keep digging, you'll find it." Well, they are digging and they haven't found it yet.

That, my friends, is EVIDENCE of ABSENCE.

[Paul the Human]

The difference, as I understand it, is that in the case you are talking about, they are intentionally looking for evidence to support a claim that would definitely have evidence to support it. Finding no evidence to demonstrate that Jerusalem was a major city in the 10th century, when said evidence would undoubtedly exist if it were true... is, indeed, evidence that the claim is wrong.

In the case I brought up, there is no expectation of evidence to support the existence of god, so a lack of evidence to that effect does not qualify as evidence itself. They are not -looking- for god... they are looking for answers. The evidence does not point to the existence of god, but that was not what they were looking for. I see them as two completely different scenarios.

[tavarish]

The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.

One quibble, albeit a major one, with this mantra.

It's wrong.


The absence of evidence is, most assuredly, evidence of absence. It is not "proof" of absence. Especially in archaeology, the next shovel in the ground can overturn all previous finds.

However, when someone like Kenneth Kitchen trots this out it is an apologetic mode to explain why his bible fantasies cannot be sustained by archaeology. The bible claims that Jerusalem was a major city in the 10th century under David and Solomon - the seat of a far flung empire. 150 years of archaeological excavation on the site has failed to show any evidence of such a city. In fact, the only evidence that is "absent" is the evidence that people like Kitchen...and your garden variety fundie morons, insist is there. Archaeology has shown Jerusalem to be a miniscule shithole in the 10th century. This is not an absence of evidence.....it is evidence which contradicts the stated view of the bible-thumpers. Might evidence be found of the capitol of a major empire? It might. I'm not about to hold my breath waiting. In places in Jerusalem they have dug down to neolithic levels complete with flint tools. In other places they are down to bedrock. Every culture which had an impact on the area has been identified EXCEPT the one that the bible-thumpers swear is true because it is in their big book of holy horseshit.

They sit smugly and say "keep digging, you'll find it." Well, they are digging and they haven't found it yet.

That, my friends, is EVIDENCE of ABSENCE.

What you're illustrating is evidence contrary to the claim, which isn't necessarily limited to an absence of evidence.

If I say that my backyard is 3 acres wide, and you find that it isn't, but I insist that it is, citing absence of evidence that it's my backyard, then I'm in the wrong. It has nothing to do with absense of evidence if the claim itself is outright false.

Absence of evidence means that we can't rule out a plausible theory just because there's no evidence to support it or evidence to go against it, somewhat like abiogenesis. We have not been able to replicate the transformation of life to non life, but that doesn't mean it didn't occur naturally.

[Minimalist]

No, what I'm illustrating is how they misuse the statement. We have "evidence" of what Jerusalem was in the 10th century that contradicts their claim. Can we ever "prove" that their version did not happen? Not to a believer's satisfaction.

Their answer to that is to ignore the evidence and insist that the evidence they want is there we just haven't found it yet. Unlike what Paul says above, they are using this in the tangible sense which is why lunatics keep wandering over Mt. Ararat looking for the fucking ark.

I could forgive the average fundie for failing to comprehend the difference but a scholar such as Kenneth Kitchen should know better. In fact, when the subject is Egyptology which is his field he does know better. When the subject turns to religion ( primarily his own ) he turns into a sputtering apologist.


The problem with the "my back yard" scenario is that it is readily visible and measurable and there should be deeds on file in the local property registrar's office. They are insisting that what cannot be seen is actually there and we just haven't found it yet. No matter what is found they will continue to insist that what they believe in has not yet been found. There is no way to satisfy that mindset.

For a scholar, like Kitchen, he should be able to understand where his mantra would lead. No one could publish anything because all of the information on any given subject has not been found. Scholars, including him, cannot function that way.

[AngelThMan]

Funny thread. Made me laugh.

More importantly: did it make you think?

The parody element is what made me laugh, especially the Part Two reference.

The structure of the 'argument' in Paul's parody is precisely the same as that of the 'argument' that you presented for God based on the lack of a full scientific understanding/ duplication of abiogenesis.

A lot of atheists do use that as an argument. The lack of evidence for God is why they don't believe. So in a way, Paul did me a favor.

[Paul the Human]

The whole point was that the lack of evidence is not evidence itself. It is true that a lot of atheists actually do think that it is evidence, but that is a lack of understanding on their part. In actuality, it is not the lack of evidence that supports the contention that there is no god, it is the sheer amount of evidence that points to wholly natural explanations and the lack of a need for there to be a god.

That doesn't make it 'evidence'. It is simply something that reinforces our lack of belief when combined with several other things of a similar nature. My actual point was that demonstrable, empirical evidence of god, both for and against, does not seem to exist. Calling something 'evidence' does not make it evidence.

To repeat a popular misquotation of something Abraham Lincoln said: 'How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling the tail a leg, does not make it a leg.'

[fr0d0]

it is the sheer amount of evidence that points to wholly natural explanations and the lack of a need for there to be a god.

I don't think so. Those natural explanations never address the theological questions.

For the concept of God to work his existence has to be unknowable.

Calling God 'not God' doesn't make him any less God.

[Paul the Human]

The evidence points to wholly natural explanations and indicates that god is not necessary. It doesn't prove such, but it does indicate it. It is not about theological questions, it is about the answers to 'why' and 'how'. None of the evidence indicates those answers to be 'god'. To me (and many other atheists) this supports our conclusion that there is no god. All conclusions are subject to revision if and when evidence to the contrary arises. Saying that, in spite of the lack of evidence, god is the answer, is simply not a rational conclusion... since there is no evidence to support it.

For the concept of God to work his existence has to be unknowable.

That's convenient.

[Caecilian]

The evidence points to wholly natural explanations and indicates that god is not necessary. It doesn't prove such, but it does indicate it. It is not about theological questions, it is about the answers to 'why' and 'how'. None of the evidence indicates those answers to be 'god'. To me (and many other atheists) this supports our conclusion that there is no god. All conclusions are subject to revision if and when evidence to the contrary arises. Saying that, in spite of the lack of evidence, god is the answer, is simply not a rational conclusion... since there is no evidence to support it.

It seems to me that the point about the lack of evidence for god is this:

All religions make extraordinary claims. They posit the existence of various sorts of supernatural entities- god(s), demons, angels, kami etc. They posit the existence of various sorts of supernatural mechanisms and transcendental 'spaces'- cycles of reincarnation, heaven and hell, bodily resurrection etc.

Whenever someone makes an extraordinary claim, the burden of proof is very firmly on them. If I were to claim that there was a pizza the size of Japan orbiting the Alpha Centauri system, then you would quite reasonably ask for evidence to back up the claim.

And yet my claim about the pizza is far less extraordinary than, say, the claim that there is an all-powerful god, or that heaven and hell exist. The pizza is at least a possibility- its allowable within our current materialist scientific understanding of the universe, and doesn't require us to change our ontology. God, heaven and hell on the other hand require massive revisions to our basic ontology, and certainly violate physical laws (e.g. divine miracles).

The complete lack of evidence for god really is a problem for theism. In the absence of evidence, why should anyone believe in such bizarre and fantastical stuff?