In regard to the rational person's choice

[Cyberman]

I would hold that in the absence of compelling evidence that "God" does exist, it could be deemed practical to conclude that it doesn't, at least provisionally, until such evidence does turn up. It's sort of like waiting for Batman to show up - how long do you give him before you decide he probably won't?

[wiploc]

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

It can be, in circumstances where you would expect evidence if the claim were true. 

- If someone tells you that you're at the center of a terrible earthquake, and you don't feel any shaking, you will reasonably believe that the claim is false.  

- If someone tells you that there is a herd of mile-tall free-roaming elephants in Kansas, you will believe that the claim is false.  You will believe this based entirely on the lack of evidence.  And you will be rational to believe this.  

- If someone claims that the Christians have a good argument for the existence of Jehovah, you will rationally believe the claim to be false because they wouldn't have been using terrible arguments for all these years if they'd had a good one.  

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?

That depends how weird gods are.  Let's have a scale of weirdness:

A. Mundane Claims: If someone says, "I have twenty-seven cents in my pocket," you're usually going to accept that as true without further evidence. 

B. Stretches: "I have twenty thousand dollars in my pocket."  This could be true, in some sense.  But it doesn't happen enough that we'll accept it as true just because you say so.  We'll need evidence.  

C. Implausible Claims: "I have a hundred billion dollars in my pocket."  It's not that it can't be true, and it's not that we wouldn't have an open mind if the evidence were thrust before us.  But the claim is weird enough for rational people to presume that it is false.     

D. Wacko Claims:  "I've been to Mars twenty-seven times.  On Mars, I found the body of Abraham Lincoln, and I brought him back to life."  This claim is presumptively false.  It goes against much that we know.  It is just possibly logically true, but most reasonable people will assume it's false.  A few people may get around to looking at your evidence if they like you a lot and want to humor you, but there's nothing irrational about just assuming that the claim is false.   

F. Impossible Claims:  "I have a round square and a married bachelor in my pocket."  Logical contradictions are false.  They cannot be true.  We know they are false without even looking at the evidence.  We have no interest in evidence, because no evidence can possibly support a contradiction.  This category includes gods that are omnipotent but can't defeat iron chariots, gods that can be seen but can't be seen, gods that are all-just or all-loving but who torture people in Hellfire forever, gods who are all-knowing but can't find the kids in the garden.         



So there's our scale of weirdness.  Now the question becomes, what does it take to be a god.   Can you be a god by having twenty-seven cents in your pocket?  No, anybody can do that.  Many people can supersize fries.  These are just normal people, not gods. 

How about Superman?  He can go faster than a speeding bullet.  He can leap tall buildings at a single bound.  He can fly.  He can squeeze charcoal into diamonds.  He is invulnerable.  These are wacko claims, right?  If Superman existed, and if he could really do those things, would that make him a god?  Maybe so.  The claim that he is a god would be plausible, because he has wacko powers.  

I think it's fair to say that if you aren't wacko or impossible, you aren't a god.  You're just a normal person who can jump over firehydrants in a single bound, who runs faster than a speeding cat, or who is invulnerable to Nerf weapons. 


Now here's the thing:  Rational people know that impossible things are false.  Rational people assume that wacko things are false.  And, in order to be a god, you have to be either impossible or wacko. 

Therefore, rational people believe that gods are false.  We don't need evidence to make this presumption. 

[Mohammed1212]

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?

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

Am I making sense?

If you can answer this, please help me out here.


See there is a poll here. English is my second language. If this thread is confusing let me know.
Thank you.

First, as a general principle, if there is no evidence, or not sufficient evidence, then one does not know the answer to whatever the question is.  So in the total absence of evidence about whether God exists or not, one would simply not know whether God exists or not.  In such a case, one should not say:  "God exists."  Nor, in such a case, should one say:  "God does not exist."

However, there are questions where, to use your terminology, "the lack of evidence itself is an evidence."  For example, right now, I look in my dining room, and I see no elephants, hear no elephants, and smell no elephants.  Given the size of my room, I know that I would see it, etc., if an elephant were there.  So I know that there are no elephants in my dining room, from not seeing any elephants there.

In the case of God, it depends greatly on what we mean by "God."  If we mean a perfectly benevolent being, who is omniscient and omnipotent, then we can know that such a thing does not exist.  The reason is that bad things happen in the world.  But if there were such a God, being omniscient, it would know about the bad things happening; being omnipotent, it would have the power to prevent the bad things from happening; and being perfectly benevolent, it would have the inclination to prevent the bad things from happening.  Consequently, if such a being existed, bad things would not happen.  Since bad things do happen, such a God does not exist.

Naturally, if you have some other idea of a god, like an omniscient and omnipotent being, but one that isn't good, then bad things happening would not prove that such a god did not exist.  Such a being, of course, would be pretty evil, given all of the bad things that happen.


Your English seems adequate.

I understand where you're coming from. The problem of evil has been a serious problem for me. I tried to puzzle it out at some point. Muslims scholars have silly answers but few of them share Lane Craig's views. Recently I read a paper ( http://www.mediafire.com/download/ae0vf1...281%29.pdf ). This paper was given to me during an exchange on Twitter. I thought the solution was subtle. The person I was discussing with is big on math and they said that God cannot do the logically impossible. "I've always been keen on math, but I don't have the time to study it". Anyway, my take on this is the following: If God can't do the logically impossible then the logically impossible can be thought of as God. Because it would be more powerful than God. 

But in reality my argument doesn't hold good in their eyes. Some religious people think that this is God. And Omnipotent does not entail the ability to do illogical things.. 

---

Thank you all for your replies and warm hospitality. I read the replies one by one.

[noctalla]

@SteelCurtain - One could claim to have knowledge of a thing without claiming to have proof of that knowledge.

Primer on epistemology:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/

I am familiar with epistemology. I can only assume you thought my statement demonstrated my ignorance on the topic. If you have a specific criticism about what I said, please tell me what it is. For now, I stand by my statement.