In regard to the rational person's choice

[Alex K]

Hi there!

Hello

I learned that dismissing God stems from the fact that a rational person mustn't believe unless evidence provided. The evidence for believing in God are not compelling as many non-religious folks put it.

Okay but is it logically valid to say that God does NOT exist based on the lack of evidence? Or should we say that God could exist but believing in him is irrational without evidence?

I'd say it depends on what precisely you claim when you say "God does NOT exist". Do you mean it as a strictly logical proof? Then rather not. If you mean it as the rejection of a scientific hypothesis based on evidence, then yes, but then you have to very carefully state what your hypothesis concerning the properties of God is. It's not a deductive proof that there is no God. The only case in which I see that possibility is for definitions of God which are internally inconsistent, but then the nonexistence is not derived from empirical evidence.

It seems to me we have to go beyond pure logic to answer the God yes/no question empirically. If you do it like Popper and attempt use God as a scientific hypothesis, then indeed it would be valid to say that the hypothesis is rejected due to lack of evidence. But for that to work you first have to come up with a definition of God which satisfies the necessary criteria.

In other words: Is the lack of evidence itself is an evidence?

If your God hypothesis doesn't make predictions for empirical observations, then we don't even have to start looking at the evidence. If it does, then it can be ruled out by observation of no evidence where the hypothesis would predict some.

To use a simplistic example, assume the God of your God hypothesis is benevolent. You can then observe the world and might find lack of evidence for divine benevolence. Consequently, the hypothesis is ruled out empirically. That's logical, but you have to add some more assumptions about the scientific process on top of pure logic, and you have to be very specific about what exactly the consequences of your hypothesis are.