God and the Absence of Evidence Argument

[Rational Agnostic]

How would you define "evidence" for an invisible being? It's not like you can look for footprints....

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How would you define "evidence" for an invisible being? It's not like you can look for footprints....

Most foundational claims of theistic religions, if they were true and justified, would probably serve as evidence for gods.

... which is why I say that the OP's scenario assumes that virtually all theistic religions are wrong.

 

[sealchan]

PLEASE NOTE WELL: This thread is about the logic of arguing that a god does not exist based on the absence of any evidence for that god's existence. This thread is NOT about whether there is or is not evidence for the existence of a god. All posts that attempt to assert evidence for the existence of god will be considered off topic and ruthlessly deleted faster than a seventeen year old virgin can shed his or her pants on prom night.​

For the purposes of this thread, please begin by assuming that there is neither sufficient nor conclusive evidence for the existence of a god. The essential question then is whether or not the lack of sufficient and/or conclusive evidence for the existence of a god provides us with sufficient and/or conclusive evidence that a god does not exist?

Or more simply, if there is no evidence for a god, does that mean there is no god?

On the surface, we might quickly answer "no". That is, we might say that the lack of evidence does not mean there is no god. After all, is not Martin Rees' aphorism correct: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"?

But what about cases in which a lack of evidence for something does indeed suggest that something does not exist or is not present? For instance: Suppose your doctor tests you for cancer. No cancer is found. Isn't that evidence that there actually is no cancer?

Or, as the logician Irving Copi once wrote, "In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence."

Can we assume that, if a god existed, evidence for that god could be discovered by "qualified investigators"?

If we answer "yes" to that question, then why yes? And if we answer "no" to that question, then why no?

If there exists a test which reliably demonstrates whether something is true or not and further, more laboriously obtained experience conclusively verifies that test, then the test determines truth. This requires that there are two procedures for determining whether something is true or not and the one procedure validates the other until the "easier" test can be relied upon alone.

Your question involves there being no further, deeper test to validate the results and as such the question, does the absence of indication indicate an absence?, cannot be resolved. It is neither true or false on the whole.

 

[james blunt]

PLEASE NOTE WELL: This thread is about the logic of arguing that a god does not exist based on the absence of any evidence for that god's existence. This thread is NOT about whether there is or is not evidence for the existence of a god. All posts that attempt to assert evidence for the existence of god will be considered off topic and ruthlessly deleted faster than a seventeen year old virgin can shed his or her pants on prom night.​

For the purposes of this thread, please begin by assuming that there is neither sufficient nor conclusive evidence for the existence of a god. The essential question then is whether or not the lack of sufficient and/or conclusive evidence for the existence of a god provides us with sufficient and/or conclusive evidence that a god does not exist?

Or more simply, if there is no evidence for a god, does that mean there is no god?

On the surface, we might quickly answer "no". That is, we might say that the lack of evidence does not mean there is no god. After all, is not Martin Rees' aphorism correct: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"?

But what about cases in which a lack of evidence for something does indeed suggest that something does not exist or is not present? For instance: Suppose your doctor tests you for cancer. No cancer is found. Isn't that evidence that there actually is no cancer?

Or, as the logician Irving Copi once wrote, "In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence."

Can we assume that, if a god existed, evidence for that god could be discovered by "qualified investigators"?

If we answer "yes" to that question, then why yes? And if we answer "no" to that question, then why no?

While there is absence of evidence of Gods existence , there is evidence of a miracle . This miracle unexplainable in any science or religious terminology .

 

[Willamena]

For the purposes of this thread, please begin by assuming that there is neither sufficient nor conclusive evidence for the existence of a god. The essential question then is whether or not the lack of sufficient and/or conclusive evidence for the existence of a god provides us with sufficient and/or conclusive evidence that a god does not exist?

Or more simply, if there is no evidence for a god, does that mean there is no god?

No, of course not. Nothing is entailed by no evidence.

On the surface, we might quickly answer "no". That is, we might say that the lack of evidence does not mean there is no god. After all, is not Martin Rees' aphorism correct: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"?

But what about cases in which a lack of evidence for something does indeed suggest that something does not exist or is not present? For instance: Suppose your doctor tests you for cancer. No cancer is found. Isn't that evidence that there actually is no cancer?

Then evidence is not lacking at all. To be tested for cancer and found clean is evidence.

Or, as the logician Irving Copi once wrote, "In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence."

Again, that is evidence, not a lack of it. If something is reasonably expected to be found but not found, that is evidence.

Can we assume that, if a god existed, evidence for that god could be discovered by "qualified investigators"?

If we answer "yes" to that question, then why yes? And if we answer "no" to that question, then why no?

Yes. But it would sorely depend on what one considers "qualified."

 

[dianaiad]

PLEASE NOTE WELL: This thread is about the logic of arguing that a god does not exist based on the absence of any evidence for that god's existence. This thread is NOT about whether there is or is not evidence for the existence of a god. All posts that attempt to assert evidence for the existence of god will be considered off topic and ruthlessly deleted faster than a seventeen year old virgin can shed his or her pants on prom night.​

For the purposes of this thread, please begin by assuming that there is neither sufficient nor conclusive evidence for the existence of a god. The essential question then is whether or not the lack of sufficient and/or conclusive evidence for the existence of a god provides us with sufficient and/or conclusive evidence that a god does not exist?

Or more simply, if there is no evidence for a god, does that mean there is no god?

On the surface, we might quickly answer "no". That is, we might say that the lack of evidence does not mean there is no god. After all, is not Martin Rees' aphorism correct: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"?

But what about cases in which a lack of evidence for something does indeed suggest that something does not exist or is not present? For instance: Suppose your doctor tests you for cancer. No cancer is found. Isn't that evidence that there actually is no cancer?

No. Personal experience. as in, I can prove that sometimes, when a doctor tests you for cancer, and no cancer is found, that this is not proof that there is no cancer. Sometimes there is.

Indeed, one of the fun things about 'chemo-brain' is that one can put something in a 'safe place,' so that one will KNOW where it is later, and then...sometime later, like a minute later, one can search for an hour and not find that thing. That is not proof that that thing is not where one put it, or that it is not in that 'safe place." Someone ELSE will find it.

And someone ELSE might just find that cancer, too.

And sometime, somewhere, someone might find evidence for God. Proving a negative is difficult. All one can do is, well, increase the odds on one side or the other.

However, in THIS case the only thing one can PROVE is that there IS a deity, and one specific sort of deity. One will never be able to prove that there is none. I mean, really....take the deity typically believed in by deists....how does one prove that THIS god does not exist?

Or, as the logician Irving Copi once wrote, "In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence."

Can we assume that, if a god existed, evidence for that god could be discovered by "qualified investigators"?

If we answer "yes" to that question, then why yes? And if we answer "no" to that question, then why no?

Define 'qualified." I mean, really, my friend....HOW long has the human race been trying to deal with the material make up of, oh, the sun? Sunspots? EMP's...like the one that pretty much messed up all the telegraphy in the world back in 1850 or so? WHEN did we discover what caused that? Electricity? Radioactive elements? All the marvelous things that we take for granted, that we all 'discovered' just within the last century or so? Things that were not even conceived of in the wildest imaginations of 'qualified investigators' of only a couple of centuries earlier?

What makes you think that any of us are 'qualified investigators' in this area, any more than, say, the scientists of Newton's time were 'qualified investigators' who could discover the evidence for black holes or the Big Bang?

Now me, I'm willing to accept that there are a great many things out there that we don't know enough yet to be qualified to investigate, not really. God may well be one of them, though to be honest, I believe I personally have enough evidence to prove, to myself, that One exist. I can't prove it to YOU, of course, and I certainly wouldn't try.

It's good enough for me, though, and I can wait for 'qualified investigators' to show up....whenever.

 

[Subduction Zone]

PLEASE NOTE WELL: This thread is about the logic of arguing that a god does not exist based on the absence of any evidence for that god's existence. This thread is NOT about whether there is or is not evidence for the existence of a god. All posts that attempt to assert evidence for the existence of god will be considered off topic and ruthlessly deleted faster than a seventeen year old virgin can shed his or her pants on prom night.​

For the purposes of this thread, please begin by assuming that there is neither sufficient nor conclusive evidence for the existence of a god. The essential question then is whether or not the lack of sufficient and/or conclusive evidence for the existence of a god provides us with sufficient and/or conclusive evidence that a god does not exist?

Of course not. But a word of warning. The Absence of Evidence Argument is often misstated. Correctly stated it is:

A lack of evidence is not necessarily evidence against an idea.

There are cases where an absence of evidence is evidence against a claim.

Or more simply, if there is no evidence for a god, does that mean there is no god?

Only if a god would be expected to leave evidence for its existence. I don't see why one would have to do that.

On the surface, we might quickly answer "no". That is, we might say that the lack of evidence does not mean there is no god. After all, is not Martin Rees' aphorism correct: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"?

No, he needed a qualifier. For example a friend, who happens to live in buffalo territory, claims that a herd of them just stampeded through his house and left through the kitchen door. Rushing over you enter through the kitchen and see that it is spotless. I would consider that as evidence against his claim.

But what about cases in which a lack of evidence for something does indeed suggest that something does not exist or is not present? For instance: Suppose your doctor tests you for cancer. No cancer is found. Isn't that evidence that there actually is no cancer?

I am far from being an expert on cancer. I would think that it is at least evidence against advanced cancer.

Or, as the logician Irving Copi once wrote, "In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence."

Can we assume that, if a god existed, evidence for that god could be discovered by "qualified investigators"?

If we answer "yes" to that question, then why yes? And if we answer "no" to that question, then why no?

That would be assuming that a god would leave some sort of evidence and as I already stated there does not seem to be any reason that a god has to leave evidence of its evidence.

 

[Bear Wild]

PLEASE NOTE WELL: This thread is about the logic of arguing that a god does not exist based on the absence of any evidence for that god's existence. This thread is NOT about whether there is or is not evidence for the existence of a god. All posts that attempt to assert evidence for the existence of god will be considered off topic and ruthlessly deleted faster than a seventeen year old virgin can shed his or her pants on prom night.​

For the purposes of this thread, please begin by assuming that there is neither sufficient nor conclusive evidence for the existence of a god. The essential question then is whether or not the lack of sufficient and/or conclusive evidence for the existence of a god provides us with sufficient and/or conclusive evidence that a god does not exist?

Or more simply, if there is no evidence for a god, does that mean there is no god?

On the surface, we might quickly answer "no". That is, we might say that the lack of evidence does not mean there is no god. After all, is not Martin Rees' aphorism correct: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"?

But what about cases in which a lack of evidence for something does indeed suggest that something does not exist or is not present? For instance: Suppose your doctor tests you for cancer. No cancer is found. Isn't that evidence that there actually is no cancer?

Or, as the logician Irving Copi once wrote, "In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence."

Can we assume that, if a god existed, evidence for that god could be discovered by "qualified investigators"?

If we answer "yes" to that question, then why yes? And if we answer "no" to that question, then why no?

For the issue of cancer - no. Even though doctors may say someone does not have cancer what they mean with the available testing we have the cancer is not detectable although the degree of certainty has increased there remains a probability of cancer being present but we know that cancer exists.
For the issue of a god or goddess - yes or at least does it matter. If a god/goddess does not leave evidence of their existence and they are undetectable that does it matter? Unlike cancer we do not start with a prior knowledge of the existence of gods or goddesses other than our desire to believe.

 

[David T]

PLEASE NOTE WELL: This thread is about the logic of arguing that a god does not exist based on the absence of any evidence for that god's existence. This thread is NOT about whether there is or is not evidence for the existence of a god. All posts that attempt to assert evidence for the existence of god will be considered off topic and ruthlessly deleted faster than a seventeen year old virgin can shed his or her pants on prom night.​

For the purposes of this thread, please begin by assuming that there is neither sufficient nor conclusive evidence for the existence of a god. The essential question then is whether or not the lack of sufficient and/or conclusive evidence for the existence of a god provides us with sufficient and/or conclusive evidence that a god does not exist?

Or more simply, if there is no evidence for a god, does that mean there is no god?

On the surface, we might quickly answer "no". That is, we might say that the lack of evidence does not mean there is no god. After all, is not Martin Rees' aphorism correct: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"?

But what about cases in which a lack of evidence for something does indeed suggest that something does not exist or is not present? For instance: Suppose your doctor tests you for cancer. No cancer is found. Isn't that evidence that there actually is no cancer?

Or, as the logician Irving Copi once wrote, "In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence."

Can we assume that, if a god existed, evidence for that god could be discovered by "qualified investigators"?

If we answer "yes" to that question, then why yes? And if we answer "no" to that question, then why no?

Oh **** please define exactly "qualified" here..

 

[Trailblazer]

Great idea for a thread, great idea.

For the purposes of this thread, please begin by assuming that there is neither sufficient nor conclusive evidence for the existence of a god. The essential question then is whether or not the lack of sufficient and/or conclusive evidence for the existence of a god provides us with sufficient and/or conclusive evidence that a god does not exist?

Logically speaking, whether there is evidence for God’s existence or not has absolutely NOTHING to do with whether God exists or not. Why? Because God could exist and not provide ANY evidence of His existence whatsoever. If God is omnipotent it is God’s choice as to whether He wants to provide humans with evidence of His existence or not.

If God does not exist in the material world, and God does not provide any evidence of His existence, how could we EVER know if God exists or not?

However, it makes logical sense that if God wants people to believe in Him, He would provide some kind of evidence.

But if God does not CARE if people believe in Him, He would have no reason to provide evidence of His existence.

Finally, if God does not care if EVERYONE believes in Him, but rather only people who were willing to work hard for it, He might provide evidence that is hard to detect.

Or more simply, if there is no evidence for a god, does that mean there is no god?

Absolutely not, because God either exists or not. Evidence has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with it. Evidence is just what most people want in order to believe in God. However, everybody does not require evidence. I know people who believe in God just because it makes sense to them that God exists, and they have no religion or any other evidence.

Recently I met a believer on another forum and I assumed he was an atheist from the way he was talking but I later came to find out he believes in God, because He said it is just a lot less complicated than not believing in God. He does not believe in any religion or afterlife. Go figure.

Can we assume that, if a god existed, evidence for that god could be discovered by "qualified investigators"?

If we answer "yes" to that question, then why yes? And if we answer "no" to that question, then why no?

Absolutely not, because if God existed inside of the material realm of existence, He would have been discovered by now. So the logical conclusion is that God does not exist inside the material realm of existence. If God exists OUTSIDE the material realm of existence, how could anyone who is living in the material realm investigate God?

 

[sayak83]

PLEASE NOTE WELL: This thread is about the logic of arguing that a god does not exist based on the absence of any evidence for that god's existence. This thread is NOT about whether there is or is not evidence for the existence of a god. All posts that attempt to assert evidence for the existence of god will be considered off topic and ruthlessly deleted faster than a seventeen year old virgin can shed his or her pants on prom night.​

For the purposes of this thread, please begin by assuming that there is neither sufficient nor conclusive evidence for the existence of a god. The essential question then is whether or not the lack of sufficient and/or conclusive evidence for the existence of a god provides us with sufficient and/or conclusive evidence that a god does not exist?

Or more simply, if there is no evidence for a god, does that mean there is no god?

On the surface, we might quickly answer "no". That is, we might say that the lack of evidence does not mean there is no god. After all, is not Martin Rees' aphorism correct: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"?

But what about cases in which a lack of evidence for something does indeed suggest that something does not exist or is not present? For instance: Suppose your doctor tests you for cancer. No cancer is found. Isn't that evidence that there actually is no cancer?

Or, as the logician Irving Copi once wrote, "In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence."

Can we assume that, if a god existed, evidence for that god could be discovered by "qualified investigators"?

If we answer "yes" to that question, then why yes? And if we answer "no" to that question, then why no?

Absence of evidence that ought to be there and observable can be taken as evidence of absence. A good example in science is the Michelson Morley experiment that ruled out aether by observing the absence of aether wind effects on the velocity of light.
Michelson–Morley experiment - Wikipedia

 

[Watchmen]

There’s something creepy about about a 60 year old making jokes about 17 year old virgins on prom night.

 

[Skwim]

PLEASE NOTE WELL: This thread is about the logic of arguing that a god does not exist based on the absence of any evidence for that god's existence. This thread is NOT about whether there is or is not evidence for the existence of a god. All posts that attempt to assert evidence for the existence of god will be considered off topic and ruthlessly deleted faster than a seventeen year old virgin can shed his or her pants on prom night.​

Must be nice to have weight to throw around. In any event . . . . .​

For the purposes of this thread, please begin by assuming that there is neither sufficient nor conclusive evidence for the existence of a god. The essential question then is whether or not the lack of sufficient and/or conclusive evidence for the existence of a god provides us with sufficient and/or conclusive evidence that a god does not exist?

Or more simply, if there is no evidence for a god, does that mean there is no god?

Of course not. Aside from a compelling psychological need, all it could mean is that there's no reason to believe or assume one exists.

But what about cases in which a lack of evidence for something does indeed suggest that something does not exist or is not present?

Suggesting is a far cry from asserting.

For instance: Suppose your doctor tests you for cancer. No cancer is found. Isn't that evidence that there actually is no cancer?

Nope.

Or, as the logician Irving Copi once wrote, "In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators.

"Some circumstances" is quite a qualifier here. Are you proposing to use it as applicable to the existence of god?

In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence."

And how would you determine there's an absence of proof? Did you look in every corner of every dresser drawer?

Can we assume that, if a god existed, evidence for that god could be discovered by "qualified investigators"?

Nope.

If we answer "yes" to that question, then why yes? And if we answer "no" to that question, then why no?

Because, qualified or not, there's no insurance he looked in every corner of every dresser drawer. Peoples ain't infallible.

.

 

[Segev Moran]

For the purposes of this thread, please begin by assuming that there is neither sufficient nor conclusive evidence for the existence of a god.

Agreed, although there is

The essential question then is whether or not the lack of sufficient and/or conclusive evidence for the existence of a god provides us with sufficient and/or conclusive evidence that a god does not exist?

The answer is no.

Or more simply, if there is no evidence for a god, does that mean there is no god?

Nope.

On the surface, we might quickly answer "no". That is, we might say that the lack of evidence does not mean there is no god. After all, is not Martin Rees' aphorism correct: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"?

This is a true statement. No evidence doesn't prove absence.

But what about cases in which a lack of evidence for something does indeed suggest that something does not exist or is not present? For instance: Suppose your doctor tests you for cancer. No cancer is found. Isn't that evidence that there actually is no cancer?

This is a different case.
When you examine someone for cancer, you are searching for a very specific evidence.
The answer you find is i have no evidence there is cancer.
For that matter, assuming there is a type of cancer we just can't really diagnose yet, this answer does not prove it does not exists rather that we cannot find anything that suggest cancer is in the patient.
for that specific matter, btw, everyone has cancer.
Our body constantly fights cancerous cells in our body. when the body fails to fight them, they might evolve to a lump that causes harm to the body.
When we scan someone for cancer, we check to see if his body have more cancerous cells than it should.

Or, as the logician Irving Copi once wrote, "In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence."

This is kind of an agreement humans have or else everything would become unsolveable.
Imagine someone claims there has been a murder. we have a law saying that if there is no body, there was no murder. this does not really mean the murder has not been committed, rather we agree that if there is a lack of evidence to support the murder, we assume it didn't happen.

Can we assume that, if a god existed, evidence for that god could be discovered by "qualified investigators"?

The problem is deciding who is the qualified investigator

If we answer "yes" to that question, then why yes? And if we answer "no" to that question, then why no?

The reason no is that God is an enigma.
We don't really have a genuine knowledge of what God is.
As the entire concept of God is non physical, this means that the evidence to that God is not observable by everyone.
I can tell you I know God exists and i have my evidence to support my knowledge.
To you, this evidence might not be sufficient for a couple of reasons:

You might not think what i treat as evidence is a good enough evidence for your standards.
You might not understand my evidence, causing you to disregard it as evidence at all.
You might think it is good evidence yet you didn't experience it for yourself and you don't trust me as a "qualified investigator".

In the end, we cannot ever say God doesn't exist as God is not something that is measurable.
You can however observe and find evidence by yourself. Your truth and Mine are two different things.

 

[LuisDantas]

This thread is a great example of evidence for the wisdom of ignosticism.

To a somewhat lesser degree, the same for apatheism.

 

[Pudding]

PLEASE NOTE WELL: This thread is about the logic of arguing that a god does not exist based on the absence of any evidence for that god's existence. This thread is NOT about whether there is or is not evidence for the existence of a god. All posts that attempt to assert evidence for the existence of god will be considered off topic and ruthlessly deleted faster than a seventeen year old virgin can shed his or her pants on prom night.​

For the purposes of this thread, please begin by assuming that there is neither sufficient nor conclusive evidence for the existence of a god. The essential question then is whether or not the lack of sufficient and/or conclusive evidence for the existence of a god provides us with sufficient and/or conclusive evidence that a god does not exist?

Or more simply, if there is no evidence for a god, does that mean there is no god?

On the surface, we might quickly answer "no". That is, we might say that the lack of evidence does not mean there is no god. After all, is not Martin Rees' aphorism correct: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"?

But what about cases in which a lack of evidence for something does indeed suggest that something does not exist or is not present? For instance: Suppose your doctor tests you for cancer. No cancer is found. Isn't that evidence that there actually is no cancer?

Or, as the logician Irving Copi once wrote, "In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence."

Can we assume that, if a god existed, evidence for that god could be discovered by "qualified investigators"?

If we answer "yes" to that question, then why yes? And if we answer "no" to that question, then why no?

If we also assume the gods is omnipotent, so it means they can figure out a 100% guranteed works method to prevent us from discover* them by "qualified investigators".
a. Yes, we can discover* them if they allow us to do so.
b. No, we can't discover* them if they prevent us to do so.

If we also assume there is a way to make us become omnipotent, what will happen when we use our omnipotent ability try to discover* those gods while they intend and try to prevent us from discover* them?
a. Magic time! Then everyone die, the end.
b. Gods use magic to turn us into flower before we cast a protect spell on us, the end.
c. We use magic to turn gods into broccoli before they cast a protect spell on them, the end.
d. We use awesome magic to discover* gods before they make up their mind to cast a non-tracking-protect spell on them. They're so angry that we discover them, so they cast an amnesia spell and omnipotent-ability-nullify spell on us before we cast protect spell on us. Magic! We forgot we have discover gods. We then find the way to make us omnipotent again, we use magic to discover gods again. Gods is really sad we discover them again. They try to cast amnesia spell on us but the spell reflect and cast back onto themselves because this time we have cast a reflecting-protect spell on us. Gods then forgot we have discover them, they carry on with their life. Life goes on. One saturday morning, gods are boring, they cast a random-scandal-information-knowledge spell on them to entertain themselves with a random scandal information. The random scandal information is that we have discover them. Gods is furious god is sad, gods cry. The story goes on, to know more, please keeps on making assumptions to keeps the story going at the readers' personal preference

If we and gods both already casting invincible and immortality magic protect spell on us:
a. Everyone simultaneously die and also not die, the end.
b. Super gods shown up and use his Super™ Omnipotent magic ability to prevent everyone (gods and us) from discover* them.
c. Super ultra gods shown up and use his Super Ultra™ Omnipotent magic ability to prevent everyone (super gods, non-super gods and us) from discover* them.
...etc.

Now we know we might discover* or not discover* gods base on various different kinds of bold assumptions.

Base on some assumptions, it is indeed that we can't discover gods. On these circumstance, absence of evidence does not mean gods doesn't exist. Those irrational strong atheists who believe gods doesn't exist. Gotcha! You can't prove gods doesn't exists.

Well, many anonymous persons written books and put them in caves or underground. It's written that Tomato Smasher, The Holy Dude, The Cool Girl or many other individuals is the universe creator, they create you and me. They are omnipotent, they use magic or their omnipotent powers to prevent us from discover* them. Gotcha! Those irrational strong atomatoists, adudists, acoolgirlist and...etc can't prove Tomato Smasher and...etc doesn't exists.

So we now know those invisible individuals might exists and we can't prove they doesn't exists. What next?

The Book of Tomato says that:
"Tomato Smasher is the humanity creator. This book is the words of Tomato Smasher. Everyone must obey his highness otherwise they will regret after they die! Various kinds of evidence, circular reasoning, vague, self-fulfill prophesy of his highness included in this book."

Tomato Smasher might exists, everyone must obey his highness, it's a good idea we make his laws to be our country's or all over the world's laws.

No?

A lot of extremist coolgirlist strongly disagree, they propose everyone must obey The Cool Girl her majesty because their book says so. Those stubborn self egotistical male crearture and acoolgirlist will go to hell after they die, they will suffer because they reject The Cool Girl. They're not cool at all, since they're not cool why do they dare to reject The Cool Girl. They'll regret, pray for their soul and wish The Cool Girl will open their blind eyes.

No?

A lot of extremists self-appointed true™ theists from a lot of different kinds of religions/denominations strongly disagree, they believe everyone must obey their god because their book says so. Go to hell you non-believers you'll die horribly suffer after you die. God is love, he has a plan for everyone. Godless immoral modern society, pitiful, sinful humanity, only god can saves us!

So we now know those invisible individuals might exists and we can't prove they doesn't exists. What next?

 

[Revoltingest]

Of course not. But a word of warning. The Absence of Evidence Argument is often misstated. Correctly stated it is:

A lack of evidence is not necessarily evidence against an idea.

There are cases where an absence of evidence is evidence against a claim.



Only if a god would be expected to leave evidence for its existence. I don't see why one would have to do that.



No, he needed a qualifier. For example a friend, who happens to live in buffalo territory, claims that a herd of them just stampeded through his house and left through the kitchen door. Rushing over you enter through the kitchen and see that it is spotless. I would consider that as evidence against his claim.



I am far from being an expert on cancer. I would think that it is at least evidence against advanced cancer.



That would be assuming that a god would leave some sort of evidence and as I already stated there does not seem to be any reason that a god has to leave evidence of its evidence.

Regarding gods, overwhelming absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence.
But it is not proof of absence. Exception: a particular god is defined as having some
testable effect in the natural world, & that test is a failure.

 

[Erebus]

Can we assume that, if a god existed, evidence for that god could be discovered by "qualified investigators"?

If we answer "yes" to that question, then why yes? And if we answer "no" to that question, then why no?

If an investigator turns up no evidence for God, then the possibility exists that this only demonstrates that they weren't qualified to begin with. Alternatively, they may be qualified but also mistaken. The doctor who finds no evidence of cancer can still be wrong after all.

Human fallibility throws a spanner in the works every time. Even without going down the rabbit hole of the evil demon/brain in a jar/Matrix, we still have to maintain a certain element of doubt when it comes to broad statements about reality.

As @LuisDantas mentions though, this doesn't prevent us from establishing personal beliefs/disbeliefs. I'd argue we must establish them if only for the sake of practicality. My insistence that a doctor could be wrong would result in endless tests until either evidence of cancer is found or I die of other causes (or, more likely, just get thrown out of the hospital).

 

[BilliardsBall]

PLEASE NOTE WELL: This thread is about the logic of arguing that a god does not exist based on the absence of any evidence for that god's existence. This thread is NOT about whether there is or is not evidence for the existence of a god. All posts that attempt to assert evidence for the existence of god will be considered off topic and ruthlessly deleted faster than a seventeen year old virgin can shed his or her pants on prom night.​

For the purposes of this thread, please begin by assuming that there is neither sufficient nor conclusive evidence for the existence of a god. The essential question then is whether or not the lack of sufficient and/or conclusive evidence for the existence of a god provides us with sufficient and/or conclusive evidence that a god does not exist?

Or more simply, if there is no evidence for a god, does that mean there is no god?

On the surface, we might quickly answer "no". That is, we might say that the lack of evidence does not mean there is no god. After all, is not Martin Rees' aphorism correct: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"?

But what about cases in which a lack of evidence for something does indeed suggest that something does not exist or is not present? For instance: Suppose your doctor tests you for cancer. No cancer is found. Isn't that evidence that there actually is no cancer?

Or, as the logician Irving Copi once wrote, "In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence."

Can we assume that, if a god existed, evidence for that god could be discovered by "qualified investigators"?

If we answer "yes" to that question, then why yes? And if we answer "no" to that question, then why no?

Respectfully, the question is moot. If one lacks evidence for God, there is no prompt to search for God (atheism, apatheism). Fortunately, there is MUCH evidence for God and scant or no evidence for God's nonexistence.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, of course not. Nothing is entailed by no evidence.

Do you consider any species to be extinct (edit: or likely extinct)?