The Pugnacious Irishman considers the general objection:
No one can prove God’s existence (or Jesus’ existence, or that the Bible is God’s word, etc, etc…just toss in any number of Christian staples). There is no evidence whatsoever. It’s all belief and faith.
This is called hard agnosticism. Atheism is the claim “There is no God”. Soft agnosticism is the claim “I don’t know if there is a God”. Hard agnosticism is the claim “No one can know whether there is a God or not”.
Now take a moment and think about how you would respond in a general way, without plunging into the arguments and counter-arguments.
Rich begins by teaching us about the notion of burden of proof:
It is important that when someone says that to you, that you never let them off the hook. It is just too easy to throw it out there without backing it up. It is a particularly convenient one liner for those who aren’t really interested in God and for those who have not thought deeply about God. That’s not to say that everyone who says that hasn’t thought deeply about God, it’s just that it’s easy for folks like that to resort to it. Rather than launching into disproving the “no proof” belief, force your conversation partner to shoulder his responsibility: he made a claim, now he must back it up. No reason for you to launch into Kalam mode.
This actually happened to me when I was working for a software company in Chicago. We were waiting for a meeting room to empty. I was browsing a William Lane Craig debate transcript on one of the lab machines, when one of the engineers said, “Why do you read that stuff? No one can know whether God exists or not!” So I said, “Why do you think that?” And he said, “Because God is non-physical and that means that we can never have evidence of a non-physical entity”. And we went from there, straight to the Kalam argument.
Rich documents FIVE responses here, and breaks them down. My favorites are the last two, but they are all useful, depending on the person who is asking.
By the way, here is the evidence for Christian theism and responses to objections, if evidence is really required. But the point of this post is that if anyone makes a claim to know that there is no proof that God exists, the first questions you need to ask before you go to the data is: what do you mean by “God”? what would count as proof for you? who have you read? what is wrong with the arguments that you’ve read? Etc.
WINTERY KNIGHT 
Scientifically and logically it’s the only supported conclusion (that there is no god). Christian’s more or less take the view that absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence. All of your “proofs” on this page (https://winteryknight.wordpress.com/index-to-christian-posts/) boil down to a few simple ideas:
1) science can’t yet explain [insert mystery here] so it must be god. I like to call this the god putty theory – just fill the cracks in with god
2) [insert event here] is so unlikely, that it must have been god
95% of your proofs on the aforementioned page boil down to the two above statements. So based on the above logic (#1 and #2) you somehow reach the conclusion that there must be one magical being that exists with no strong proof, no strong observations, and very few arguments that don’t boil down to #1 or #2. If modern science operated this way we would never hear the end of it. I would bet you can’t explain how your proofs exclude multiple magical beings.
To assert something exists you have to have irrefutable proof – produce said object would be the easiest. If you can’t, you need to produce some artifact that leads to god (bible written by man decades to centuries after god aren’t good proof).
Also, don’t you find it ironic that all of these theistic miracles that lead to the belief in god stopped occurring around the time that we developed the scientific and investigative techniques to actually inspect the claims of miracles/gods?
LikeLike
Actually, the form of argumentation favored on the page is deductive, the Sherlock Holmes style, so that the conclusions follow necessarily as an inference from the premises. The premises are warranted by what we know about the world, either from science or from history, etc. Some of the arguments are also inference to the best explanation, which is a different style, but one that Darwin himself used.
I’m not going to be able to produce God for you to see, you’ll have to look at the evidence that he’s acted. Like a crime scene detective. It’s a mystery for your to solve, that is the whole point. God is interested in people who follow the evidence where it leads, because then there is a relationship. He also expects you to act on what you’ve found.
It’s ironic that no new miracles occur, but we are discovering the evidence of past miracles from science, and to a lesser extent from history, so that God is not left without a witness. Those who are wiling to believe can find the evidence they need. Those who are not willing to believe simply don’t spend any time looking at the evidence, by choice. They do not want to know, because they do not want to lose their autonomy.
LikeLike
“no new miracles have occured.”
–This is news to me. I completely disagree with that premise.
LikeLike
I’m open-minded about it.
LikeLike
Jerry,
1) Describe the God that you don’t think exists.
2) What would count as “proof” (i.e. scientific evidence, God writing “believe me” in the sky, or something more reasonable)?
3) What would you do if you came to know God existed (i.e. would you follow him and obey, or continue in your disinterested state?)? What would you do if I “proved” to you that God existed?
4) What, specifically, are the arguments and evidence you’ve heard so far, and why do you reject them?
5) Great minds have been writing about evidence and reasons for God’s existence for milennia. Scientists, philosophers, and historians have all had their say. Who have you read, and why do you reject what they have to say?
LikeLike
My favorites are 4 and 5, like I said. But I see the value of 1, 2 and 3. This was a great post by Rich!
LikeLike
1) the one with magical powers that operates outside the laws of the physical universe (i.e., any magical being including but not limited to the christian god)
2) anything irrefutable – he could transport us all to a place outside the universe (since he must exist there because he existed before the universe started) or talk to all of us at once and allow us all to hear everyone else completely understanding – my point is a being of unlimited power should be able to prove his/her existence beyond any doubt
3) It’s hard to speculate about future fantasy situations – but my first goal would be to find out as much as possible – what does he want, why did he let idiots warp his image and desires with books like the bible/koran, etc.
4) look at the link I posted previously – it encompasses the majority of the christian proof of god. Most every other source boils down to books like the bible and koran – books written by man thousands or years ago in a time of highly superstitious people, ignorant, uneducated people. These books and believes formed back then are what forms the backbone of all current arguments. The original sources are so highly suspect, everything derived from them must also be.
5) Great minds have been writing about the non-existence of god and the existence of many other gods – why do you believe the people that back what you want to believe? Why do you discount the billions of other humans that don’t believe what you do?
My #1 and #2 arguments precisely boil down the theists arguments. I’ve gone to college, belong to MENSA, and can clearly think through these arguments without relying on others to spoon feed me. My assertion that god does not exist is the only logical conclusion at this point. We have no hard/decent proof of the existence of any magical beings – none. And lack of explanations or difficult to explain phenomena does not point to evidence of magical beings – it points to the need of increasing scientific study.
LikeLike
I just want to point out again that my arguments are based on the latest findings from the progress of science. These are not arguments from ignorance, they are arguments based on premises supplied by mainstream science. I.e. – the discovery of the cosmic background radiation, the discovery of carbon resonance levels, the discovery of DNA transcription, the fossil discoveries in the Burgess shale, etc.
The atheist is the one arguing based on unobservables and future hope: unobservable vacuum outside the the universe, unobservable multiverse, unobservable aliens seeding the earth with life, unobservable precursor fossils to the Cambrian fossils, etc.
Thanks for looking at my page of arguments and counter-arguments. I know perfectly well you are going to use those arguments on atheists at the gym when you pose as a Christian just to have fun debating. You big stealer! But I don’t mind so long as you read them all and find out what it is we do here. We destroy speculations and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God.
LikeLike
“cosmic background radiation, the discovery of carbon resonance levels, the discovery of DNA transcription, the fossil discoveries in the Burgess shale …”
These all fall into #1: science can’t yet explain [insert mystery here] so it must be god…
Science is young – in the mid-east they still kill you for offering anything other than “god did it” and up until the 1920’s in the US and Europe it was about the same: think Scope’s trial – they wanted to toss him in jail and throw away the key for teaching science in the late 1920’s. So science has had less than a century where it can be out in the open without religious leaders torturing/executing you and you expect it to answer some of the toughest questions around, then when it can’t yet do so (and you’re completely ignoring the progress of science) you throw your arms up and proclaim “God!!!”.
Not to mention for issues like fossils – the earth isn’t static – plate techtonics move fossils into hostile countries or bury them in the sea. It takes time and a lot of money to find them, excavate, and process/study them. Background radation – it’s a relatively new discovery and our instruments are getting better by the day – how can we answer something when it takes technology to discover it and technology we don’t even possess yet to fully understand and process it? DNA has had a lot of discoveries and they’ve come close to recreating primordial situations that naturally give rise to RNA in the lab – is it the same primordial situaton as earth 5 billion years ago – who knows, no one was around, but we’re pretty certain and if we can create the situation and conditions that we know currently exist and have existed in the past, we know we can be fairly certain that we’re giving good answers to those questions.
LikeLike
No, Jerry you don’t understand. I am appealing to the known facts. Things that are discovered and published in peer-reviewed journalists based on observations using expensive microcopes and telescopes. The atheist is the one speculating about the unobservable vacuum outside the the universe, unobservable multiverse, unobservable aliens seeding the earth with life, unobservable precursor fossils to the Cambrian fossils, etc.
The position you are in is 100% opposed to the progress of science. You are like some primitive witch doctor faced with the real medical capabilities of a real doctor. You’re losing influence because you can’t explain anything. So you try to explain to your tribe (via the public schools) why you should retain your authority because the Flying Spaghetti Monster is testing their faith and will soon appear to show that all of the progress of science is lies, and we need to have faith in the unobservable vacuum outside the the universe, unobservable multiverse, unobservable aliens seeding the earth with life, unobservable precursor fossils to the Cambrian fossils, etc. because the new, better, future, yet-to-be-discovered science will overturn everything we know today.
Regarding the RNA discovery, it is due to experimenter intervention. Listen to this podcast with a prominent experimental scientist from Baylor.
And stop sending me these e-mails about how the Flying Spaghetti Monster is coming back soon and will smite me for my unbelief. Unless and until you can tear down all of my arguments from science, I don’t want to hear any more about the glories of his noodly appendage. Oh, and I ate a bowl of spaghetti last night and it was delicious.
LikeLike
I don’t have to prove anything is my point – you’re “scientific progress” is this:
Scientist1: I discovered background radiaton
Scientist2: how do we explain background radiation?
Scientist3: Big Bang (let’s ignore all the problems with that theory since it is currently our best).
Scientist2: How do we explain Big bang?
Theist: It must be god!!
That is how the theist envisions “scientific” progress. But the injection of magic into a theory automatically removes it from the scientific realm. We cannot prove magic, we cannot directly observe it, and we cannot draw conclusions or make predictions from it. Lets take a look at how science handles the above situation:
Scientist1: I discovered background radiaton
Scientist2: how do we explain background radiation?
Scientist3: Big Bang (let’s ignore all the problems with that theory since it is currently our best).
Scientist2: How do we explain Big bang?
All scientists: We can’t yet, so let’s studying it in greater detail.
I know, it isn’t all that fulfilling, but it’s science. Science is about fact, predictions, reproduction, observation; it’s not about waving a book in other peoples faces claiming unobservable magical beings did it.
LikeLike
I can do that, too , you know!
Scientist1: I discovered a department memo regarding travel expenses
Scientist2: how do we explain the specified complexity of this functional sequence of characters?
Scientist3: we must resort to materialist mechanisms only!
Scientist1: Maybe the words formed on the backs of crystals?
Scientist2: Maybe the words formed by spilling ink on the paper and having the paper molecules bond with the ink molecules?
Scientist3: Maybe the words formed by unobservable aliens from Andromeda! But they evolved though!
Scientist1: Maybe the words quantum-tunnelled onto the paper from one of the many unobservable universes not fine-tuned for life!
Theist: Maybe an intelligent agent sequenced the written words, just like you are sequencing words now when you talk! Actually, I wrote that memo myself.
Scientist1: Shut up! You’re expelled!
(they perp-march the theist out of the lab)
Scientist2: Let us vote Democrat now so that we may receive grants to study the explanation of this memo!
Scientist1: But let us murder embryos in order to do so!
Scientist3: Yes, then the request will surely be granted by Obama, the most pro-abortion President ever!
Scientist1: We will also need to frighten the public about the Flying Spaghetti Monster to make them vote Democrat, too!
Scientist2: Yes! Let us fake some data in order to do that!
I have more. Do you want to hear another one? It’s fun!
LikeLike
I agree that it is funny. Do one where the scientist proposes an idea that the bush administration doesn’t like and the scientist looses all funding and ends up in gitmo!!
LikeLike
LOL. Stop it!
LikeLike
I hope there is no God
LikeLike
A different perspective, try to consider the question from as great a distance as possible.
For instance:
– If there is a God, that is an all knowing omnipotent, omnipresent being….why would he concern himself (herself?) with what we believe?
– If there is a God, and we are his “children”, why would he (she) toy with us by giving us “free will”? (Would you stand by while your child was in the presence of danger, and just wait to see what happens?)
– If there is a God, and we are to believe in him (her) in order to be saved, then what of the fact that throughout mankind’s existence, a minuscule percentage of mankind has even heard of this?…..What of the majority….to hell with them?
– If there is a God, then why is it that we, the lucky ones, have the leisure and luxury of debating this while billions have (had) so much suffering and strife in their lives that they cannot even imagine beyond their pain? What of them, if there is a God?
If there is indeed a God, then he or she is far beyond my humble comprehension.
LikeLike
The latter 3 challenges are the 3 best objections to Christian theism, so thanks for your comment.
Here are the answers:
The hiddenness of God
The problems of evil and suffering
The fate of the unevangelized
For the first question, I claim that God is concerned with what we believe about his existence and character based on the words of Jesus.
My full list of arguments pro and con is here.
LikeLike
Wintery Knight,
I respect your belief in the “Words of Jesus”, or….what the many antiquated authors have claimed of him. However I do not share it.
As for the the articles pertaining to the rest, I do not believe they realistically reflect the condition of modern man. The circular thought processes involved suggest that the presence of no viable explanation is an invitation to speculation of the most fantastical nature.
For instance, regarding “The fate of the unevangelized”,….to suggest that God knew beforehand who would believe in him and who wouldn’t, and placed them accordingly in time, seems like a real stretch for me, and i was raised a Catholic. Not only that but it raises far more questions in my mind than the original query did.
Again, with respect, I appreciate your consideration, but the words of men who are trying to argue that which cannot be proved become very labored and inaccessible.
LikeLike
Hey TI. These arguments are published at the highest levels of philosophy of religion. There is no circular reasoning, they are solid.
You can call them the words of men, but there is a huge difference between the words of a village atheist and the words of a respected, tenured, analytical philosopher writing in Cambridge University Press or Oxford University Press, etc. These are not mere opinions.
My recommendation is to find a formal academic debate where the topics come up. For example, you can hear William Lane Craig and Walter Sinnott-Armstrong debate the problems of evil and suffering here in front of a church audience (this is an entry level debate). This debate was the basis for their jointly authored book “God?: A Debate between a Christian and an Atheist“, published by Oxford University Press in 2003. You can look for other debates by Craig as well, published by the top academic presses in the world. Let me assure you that they do not publish mere opinions.
Not trying to be mean, just letting you know that we’ve got the goodies on these questions for all who are serious about finding the answers. But the goodies are on the top-shelf. Can you reach that high?
LikeLike
Wintery, it is only a recent event that college admissions have had anything to do with talent – the past few centuries, you had to be from a rich family to go to college – this is no garuantee that these men deserved the respect they demanded or that they were the brightest and best thinkers – they were simply born into a rich family.
In present times, things aren’t much better – any and every idiot is encouraged to go to college, regardless of skill. But you still have colleges that allow legacies (restricted, ironically enough, to the elite universities) – your parents went here so you can too (think Bush Jr); though I will concede that the majority of the ivy league is average or above.
Since colleges don’t restrict themselves to purely the brightest, you have to water down your curriculum to ensure you don’t lose revenue from drop-outs. You want to get a PhD – simply study hard (not a bad thing) – if your grades (as compared to all the idiots in your class) are decent, you can continue. Why do I say this – I had 3 people I went to secondary school with that got PhD’s – only one was bright, the other 2 were at best mediocre in high school, yet now they are college professors.
When you are talking about philosophy, yes, they are mere men and they are opinions. In philosophy, you need merely make a compelling argument, there is no scientific right or wrong (something you can prove with the physical sciences).
LikeLike
Wintery Knight,
I am sure that these men are held in very high regard, just as many before them.
Nevertheless, they are mere men, as educated as they may be.
Just we are, and becoming defensive only means that we must agree to disagree.
I choose to think for myself, and in my years I have come to learn that the truth is usually far less complicated than we sometimes imagine.
I believe rather than trying to build our own egos by imagining that we are so very special (Made in the image of God), we must seek the truth within ourselves and nurture our relations with our peers.
Otherwise, I await the news that the existence of God has been proven. By learned men, who do not judge and persecute their fellow man.
LikeLike
Sorry if I was mean!
You can hear 3 good arguments in this audio lecture by William Lane Craig, based on the findings of science surrounding the origin and fine-tuning of the universe.
There is a response from prominent “New Atheist” Daniell Dennett after Craig’s speech. You can decide how strong Craig’s arguments are from Dennett’s response. That’s how I decide these issues. Listen to both sides, try to see what survives.
Honestly, I appreciate your comments and tone. I don’t expect you to just convert, I am just letting you know that we have answers to your questions and that I at least find them convincing, on the merits. (There are some arguments for Christian theism I do not find convincing! Like the ontological argument! What a load of silliness!)
LikeLike