... and therefore does not exist in the material sense of the word?
Indeed - any person making any sort of claims about God would be necessarily unjustified. This would make virtually every theistic religion wrong.
Is this really your position?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
God and the Absence of Evidence Argument
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
Is this really your position?
You need to first know what the nature of history is. Here is a quote from Jewish historian Josephus (lived 2000 years ago).
The Wars of the Jews, book 2, chapter 12, section 8
After this Caesar sent Felix, the brother of Pallas, to be procurator of Galilee, and Samaria, and Perea, and removed Agrippa from Chalcis unto a greater kingdom; for he gave him the tetrarchy which had belonged to Philip, which contained Batanae, Trachonitis, and Gaulonitis: he added to it the kingdom of Lysanias, and that province [Abilene] which Varus had governed. But Claudius himself, when he had administered the government thirteen years, eight months, and twenty days, died, and left Nero to be his successor in the empire, whom he had adopted by his Wife Agrippina's delusions, in order to be his successor, although he had a son of his own, whose name was Britannicus, by Messalina his former wife, and a daughter whose name was Octavia, whom he had married to Nero; he had also another daughter by Petina, whose name was Antonia.
I want you to take a look at the last name appeared. By applying the line of reasoning in OP, Antonia can't exist!
That could be a nobody's name possibly mentioned only once in a history book. How will you evaluation whether the author is a "qualified investigator" of Antonia in this case? There could be no where says that Josephus actually knew Antonia, or how credible his investigation was in this specific case regarding to this nobody figure Antonia.
This "Antonia" case however is almost typical of what history is. The author believed that the information should be for credible accounts (ultimately eyewitness accounts), then he will or can include "Antonia" in the book of history without actually knowing her personally. That's how history "works".
If you have question the "qualification" of the author or evidence of Antonia's existence, well you may have tick her out of the book (i.e, by following the line of logic in OP).
History is the recording of 0.00000000000000000000000000000001% of human activities of 0.00000000000000000000000000000001% humans who happened to be known of by a historian. Antonia is rather a side figure (unimportant), most history are about famous person who had influence to the society where an author ever lived. Sometimes we have no choice but to count in what was said as "what could possibly happened" even in the case of famous persons and events, not to speak those nobodies such as Antonia.
On the other hand, "influential figures or events" are almost exclusively in a secular sense. Jesus is just one of many self claimed Messiah ever existed. No one back knew Jesus would have an influence to today's world. It's almost natural that an author living in Jesus' time would take all the self-claimed Messiah equally, and to exclude them from a serious history book. Even when Jesus was seriously recorded down by secular means (to be more specific by the Jewish means), the writings may not have a chance to survive the AD 70 siege. How many Sanhedrin writings and books still exist today? It's almost none. Today's Jewish teachings are mostly based on authors living after AD 250.
In a nutshell, with that 0.<xxx>1% out of 0.<xxx>1% human activities recorded in our history, minus those you can't make the author "qualified" or the activities evident (oh no, most of them can't be evident if you'd like to count history books on a page by page basis), and then come to the conclusion that the 9999999999999999999999999999.99% activities can't exist. Now what's that?
Like I said somewhere else, we can't even confirm recent history such as Nanjing Massacre occurred in World War II, which could possibly involve 300,000 human lives (as claimed by the Chinese). Here we are talking about a human mass activity, not to mention individual activities by the nobodies ever lived. Of course by applying the line of reasoning in OP, the Japanese must be justified to conclude that "Nanjing massacre never happened".
That being said. There's another dilemma here.
By the assumption that God exists, if He has a will to hide the evidence from humans,
in this case if He fails He's not God. If He succeeds humans thus have no evidence!
It is said that the Christian God has a good reason to hide the evidence, as if He's made evident than no humans can be saved, as humans will have to rely on faith to be saved in accordance to the current covenant in place.
So if God is true, do you want God makes Him evident such that all mankind is deemed not savable?
The Wars of the Jews, book 2, chapter 12, section 8
After this Caesar sent Felix, the brother of Pallas, to be procurator of Galilee, and Samaria, and Perea, and removed Agrippa from Chalcis unto a greater kingdom; for he gave him the tetrarchy which had belonged to Philip, which contained Batanae, Trachonitis, and Gaulonitis: he added to it the kingdom of Lysanias, and that province [Abilene] which Varus had governed. But Claudius himself, when he had administered the government thirteen years, eight months, and twenty days, died, and left Nero to be his successor in the empire, whom he had adopted by his Wife Agrippina's delusions, in order to be his successor, although he had a son of his own, whose name was Britannicus, by Messalina his former wife, and a daughter whose name was Octavia, whom he had married to Nero; he had also another daughter by Petina, whose name was Antonia.
I want you to take a look at the last name appeared. By applying the line of reasoning in OP, Antonia can't exist!
That could be a nobody's name possibly mentioned only once in a history book. How will you evaluation whether the author is a "qualified investigator" of Antonia in this case? There could be no where says that Josephus actually knew Antonia, or how credible his investigation was in this specific case regarding to this nobody figure Antonia.
This "Antonia" case however is almost typical of what history is. The author believed that the information should be for credible accounts (ultimately eyewitness accounts), then he will or can include "Antonia" in the book of history without actually knowing her personally. That's how history "works".
If you have question the "qualification" of the author or evidence of Antonia's existence, well you may have tick her out of the book (i.e, by following the line of logic in OP).
History is the recording of 0.00000000000000000000000000000001% of human activities of 0.00000000000000000000000000000001% humans who happened to be known of by a historian. Antonia is rather a side figure (unimportant), most history are about famous person who had influence to the society where an author ever lived. Sometimes we have no choice but to count in what was said as "what could possibly happened" even in the case of famous persons and events, not to speak those nobodies such as Antonia.
On the other hand, "influential figures or events" are almost exclusively in a secular sense. Jesus is just one of many self claimed Messiah ever existed. No one back knew Jesus would have an influence to today's world. It's almost natural that an author living in Jesus' time would take all the self-claimed Messiah equally, and to exclude them from a serious history book. Even when Jesus was seriously recorded down by secular means (to be more specific by the Jewish means), the writings may not have a chance to survive the AD 70 siege. How many Sanhedrin writings and books still exist today? It's almost none. Today's Jewish teachings are mostly based on authors living after AD 250.
In a nutshell, with that 0.<xxx>1% out of 0.<xxx>1% human activities recorded in our history, minus those you can't make the author "qualified" or the activities evident (oh no, most of them can't be evident if you'd like to count history books on a page by page basis), and then come to the conclusion that the 9999999999999999999999999999.99% activities can't exist. Now what's that?
Like I said somewhere else, we can't even confirm recent history such as Nanjing Massacre occurred in World War II, which could possibly involve 300,000 human lives (as claimed by the Chinese). Here we are talking about a human mass activity, not to mention individual activities by the nobodies ever lived. Of course by applying the line of reasoning in OP, the Japanese must be justified to conclude that "Nanjing massacre never happened".
That being said. There's another dilemma here.
By the assumption that God exists, if He has a will to hide the evidence from humans,
in this case if He fails He's not God. If He succeeds humans thus have no evidence!
It is said that the Christian God has a good reason to hide the evidence, as if He's made evident than no humans can be saved, as humans will have to rely on faith to be saved in accordance to the current covenant in place.
So if God is true, do you want God makes Him evident such that all mankind is deemed not savable?
Last edited:
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
True. God is immaterial. That just means that God is not material, and that is all we can know because the intrinsic nature of God is unknowable.
Yes, this is my position; that God exists outside the material realm of existence.
Why would the fact that God exists OUTSIDE the material realm of existence make any sort of claims about God necessarily unjustified, making virtually every theistic religion wrong?
Is this really your position? Why?
In other words, why would anyone expect God to exist INSIDE the material realm of existence, the realm we now occupy?
Why can’t there be more than one realm of existence?
How do you know there are no other realms of existence?
Why can’t God exist in another realm, a spiritual realm?
... on the grounds of lack of evidence that the species still exists, which you've taken as entailing that the species likely doesn't exist?
It's not a matter of where God can or cannot exist; it's a matter of the nature of knowledge.
Any religion that claims to have justified knowledge of God would need for God to be in a form or state that can justify that knowledge. Any god that exists entirely in a form or dimension that's invisible and immeasurable to humans is not the god of any human religion.
To the extent that a theistic religion is justified, its gods are observable. If a religion's gods are completely unobservable, then the religion is completely unjustifiable.
No, on the grounds of evidence that the species is gone. No one draws conclusions on lack of evidence. No one (except maybe you).
What evidence do you think there is of a species being gone?
Do some reading on extinct species: typically, there will be statements like "the species has not been observed in the wild since (year) and the last known examples in captivity died in (year). The species is now considered extinct."
Determining whether a species is extinct is all based on lack of evidence.
Yes, one evidence of a species being gone is no reports of it being sighted anymore (i.e. reports that it is not sighted anymore).
If there were no reports at all about it one way or the other, then there would be no evidence to conclude that it is gone. But reports that it is gone are evidence that it is gone.
Edit: Evidence of absence is not absence of evidence. If you are told that the shovel is in the garage and you go to get it, but don't find it after searching the whole garage, you have clear evidence that the shovel is not in the garage.
Last edited:
Ponder This
Well-Known Member
The Tale of the Giant Squid:
Where is Love?:
Three Questions to Ask Yourself:
Reliability and the Qualified Expert:
The problem with a reliable means of detection is that you can't know if it reliable unless you have successfully detected the presence of a thing before. If I walk around with an electroencephalogram looking for ghosts... well, has anyone ever detected a ghost with an electroencephalogram before? This is really important to know!
And when the "ghost expert" comes back and says, "We didn't see anything on the electroencephalogram to indicate a ghost." Does that mean there were no ghosts?
Imagine a fishing village on the West coast of England. Sailors come into the local pub. You share a drink with them and they regal you with tales of a giant squid. The scientist sitting next to you chimes that there are no such things as giant squids. This was the approximate state of the world before the giant squid was finally verified. Plenty of stories for the giant squid existed (going back to Aristotle and Pliny the Elder), but where was the evidence? The lack of evidence was enough to convince some people that tales of the giant squid were the product of imaginative sailors. We can look back and ask: what fallacy did they commit?
The Extinct Fish:Imagine you are sitting at a table of scientists and discussing the extinct Coalacanth: a fish that lived 65 million years ago, when someone walks into the room and places a live specimen on your table. Of course, the absence of living specimens had convinced people it was extinct, because the fallacy of Absence of Evidence is so easy to fall into. All you have to do is convince yourself that you've looked everywhere.
Odysseus' Ship:Imagine you are discussing a Greek vase depicting Odysseus' ship. Everyone agrees that it must be a stylized rendition because no examples of such a stylized ship currently exist. Then a perfectly preserved example of one is found on the floor of the Black Sea!
Where Are My Car Keys?:Imagine you are trying to find your car keys. Surely no one is a greater expert on your own car keys than yourself! But somehow you can't find them. The question you ask is: Where are my car keys? At no point do you say: There are no car keys. This is despite you not being able to find them. Can you imagine your spouse comes up to you and suggests that you don't actually have car keys?!?
When you convince yourself that you have looked everywhere when you haven't, you can fall into the trap of thinking you have Evidence of Absence, when you really do not.Where is Love?:
Let's say you are looking for Love. You see a couple walking down the street. They look into each other's eyes. Perhaps they have found Love! But you don't personally feel any differently. Can you say that there is Love there? Or not there?
Three Questions to Ask Yourself:
1. Do you know who or what God is?
If not, you've failed before you've begun.
2. Do you know where God may be found?If not, then you're already lost.
3. Do you have a reliable means of detection?If not, then you can make no (falsifiable) claim.
Reliability and the Qualified Expert:
Let's unpack Reliability and the "Qualified Expert". You can't simply state a person is "qualified" and wave your hands like a magician. The fundamental dilemma is that a means of detection is known to be reliable because it has successfully detected before.
The Cancer Detecting Device:
The Cancer Detecting Device:
For example, if someone comes out with a "Cancer Detecting Device" but asserts that it has never detected the presence of cancer before... then we can't know that the device actually detects cancer or not!
The God Detecting Device:If someone comes out with a "God Detection Device" and asserts that 'it has never detected God before', then we can't know that it actually detects God or not!
How do you know a person is a "Qualified Expert"? Imagine, you ask him: 'Have you ever detected the presence of Cancer before?' And he replies (with confidence): 'No!'The problem with a reliable means of detection is that you can't know if it reliable unless you have successfully detected the presence of a thing before. If I walk around with an electroencephalogram looking for ghosts... well, has anyone ever detected a ghost with an electroencephalogram before? This is really important to know!
And when the "ghost expert" comes back and says, "We didn't see anything on the electroencephalogram to indicate a ghost." Does that mean there were no ghosts?
Right: so if researchers go out into the habitat and find an absence of evidence for the species - no living individuals, no fur or droppings, no burrows/nests/etc. - then you agree that this is evidence of the absence of the species.
You just contradicted yourself. Is the lack of a shovel (i.e. an absence of evidence for the shovel) evidence of absence or not?
And even if you only searched a bit of the garage - for instance, the parts of the garage where the shovel is usually kept and where it might be easily put - you would still have evidence that the shovel is absent. Not conclusive evidence, but still evidence.
The "lack of a shovel" and "an absence of evidence for the shovel" are two entirely different things--one with the shovel as the subject, and the other with evidence of the shovel as the subject. Please don't conflate them.
I would consider the shovel to be missing if I failed to find it. Evidence of absence, rather than absence of evidence.
siti
Well-Known Member
That could get messy...
Oh sorry - was that not the main point of the OP?
Er - OK - absence of evidence is...er...um...absence of evidence. Yep - that's it I think...yeah - nothing else...
...well - there is just one more thing...in the absence of evidence it is reasonable not to believe but not to believe not - so...
...it is perfectly reasonable to say "I don't believe in God because there is no evidence..." but it is not reasonable to say "I believe there is no God because there is no evidence..." I believe.
Cooky
Veteran Member
The cancer comparison is fair, IMO, since cancer is a physical reality. God, on the other hand, may not be physical, and humans do not have the capacity to completely understand the non-physical. We can only detect electricity and gravity, for instance, because they have a direct influence on the physical world before us.
...But that's not to say that there are not other non-physical forces or realities that exist beyond our capabilities. Remember, we as humans can only think abstractly at best, IOW, we must reduce or observe only to the best abilities of the human mind, which might be limited in scope to what is only present here on earth by terrestrial evolutionary standards specifically. IOW, we cannot comprehend the whole of extra-terrestrial realities.
It would be foolish for any scientific minded person to ignore this..!
Last edited by a moderator:
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
The actual God who is immaterial cannot be observed. It is unreasonable to expect anything immaterial to be observed. BTW, this also applies to the “spiritual world” aka afterlife.
There are ways to know about God and the spiritual world without observing them directly. Direct observation is not the only path to knowledge. Sometimes we have to take someone else’s word for what they know or have seen.
The only way that God can be observed is in His Messengers who are both human and divine. In a sense they are God manifested in human form, except they are not the Essence of God, which cannot ever be observed or known.
... like you are?
The only way you could conclude that your shovel is not in your garage not based on an absence of evidence would be if you had positive evidence of it being somewhere else (e.g. "I know my shovel isn't in the garage because I see it in the back yard").
Any conclusion you reach from just searching your garage and not finding your shovel is a conclusion based on an absence of evidence for your shovel. Observational evidence, in this case.
It's both, actually.
I didn't say "directly." And it's fine to claim that your god is unobservable, but just understand that this means you have no way to tell what he's like or if he even exists at all.
I didn't say it was.
I will say that hearsay isn't a valid path to knowledge, though.
So you can be no more certain of God's existence than you're certain that:
- these "messengers" really are messengers, and
- what they say is true.
Do you have justification for either of those claims? It seem you've traded one problem for two.
I base my conclusion on the evidence of the search, not on any lack of evidence. It is only possible to base conclusions on evidence--if evidence is lacking, there is nothing on which to base a conclusion. No evidence is not evidence.
I disagree.
Evidence of absence - Wikipedia
I cannot say where the shovel is: I lack evidence of where the shovel is. I can, however, say where the shovel isn't, because I searched the garage and didn't find it. I have evidence of where it isn't, but I have no evidence of where it is. I can draw a conclusion only from the evidence.
I am speaking of evidence, not the shovel itself. I am, incidentally, lacking a shovel in the sense that I really, really want one so that I can clear my step. But for this argument, I am talking only about evidence.
Last edited:
You keep on saying that, but then you continue with arguments that imply you do agree with me.
That's right: the absence of evidence for the shovel is evidence of the absence of the shovel.
No, the search is the evidence for the absence of the shovel.
Edit: I expect we will never see eye to eye on the positivity of the world engendered by the English language.