Is atheism the result of lack of evidence or impossibility of evidence for God's existence?

Question

In another question, I asked "What is illogical about theism?" Generally speaking the responses to this question were tied back to there being a lack of evidence. I'd agree that in order for something to be believable, it needs evidence. To me, it seems that there is plenty of evidence for God's existence, but that evidence is not acceptable to atheists. The argument goes like this.

1.) All that is knowable is the natural world
2.) Therefore, the supernatural world is not knowable
3.) Therefore, can be no evidence for the supernatural world
4.) Therefore there is no reason to believe in the supernatural world.

Hypothetical syllogism simplifies this:

1.) If all that is knowable is the natural world, there is no way to believe in the supernatural world.

So, is it really a lack of evidence, or the presumption that evidence can't exist?

Darwin, I'd say evidence for God is the cumulative case of the arguments for God's existence (Cosmological, Teleological, Ontological, and Transcendental) Many of these arguments can be inferred from empirical data, such as big bang cosmology, irreducible complexity, specified complexity, purpose in nature, and psychological notions such as justice (C.S. Lewis' "borrowed Capital") and things of that nature. I am not here to debate the particulars, but to ask a question about the credibility of such data.

D_Chino, that's what I am asking: Is atheism the result of a presumption that no evidence for God can exist? If atheism makes an epistemic presumption about the kind of knowledge we can have, then is it utter nonsense?

Blackacre, if knowledge about the supernatural is obtainable, then atheism is baseless. One has to assume that in order to truly be atheist, or he or she is granting that it is possible for evidence to exist. Then it's not a lack of evidence, it's a lack of acceptable evidence at that point, and there is a difference.

Blackacre, does atheism at some point make the inference that such evidence doesn't exist based on the all the evidence they are presented? I have met other people who were raised atheists, and when they contacted Christianity accepted it as true, so it works both ways.

In other words, it seems that it is all or nothing for atheism--either one rejects all evidence or not. At the point where an atheist accepts that evidence exists for God's existence, then he or she is granting the possibility of God's existence, and it is no longer a lack of evidence that makes them atheists, but something else.

Alexander, even if we accept your proposition, this raises the question, who was the first race to do what you are talkin about? Did they evolve without being seeded? Second, is ir really gaurateed for life to evolve a concept of God like thier forebearers? What you are talking about really doesn't give one much to work with, but that doesn't mean it is not possible.

Alexander, I am talking about classic theism -- a supernatural God as implied by the argument. If you want a particular view of God, it is the one that theists accept and atheists rejct. Gods in this category would be the God of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and most all animistic religions. One could make a case for panentheism and pantheism as well, considering thier nature.

Answer 1

Why do you begin your syllogism with the statement "all that is knowable is the natural world"? I do not believe that Atheists begin with such a presumption. Is it not more of a failing of any evidence of the supernatural?

In terms of presumptions, most Atheists I know were originally raised in the Christian religion, and only turned to Atheism as they grew up and explored various intellectual areas. There was never really a presumption of "no God", but rather a gradual weaning from an instilled idea that there was a God. In this, there was often a presumption that evidence for a God could exist, as there was an underlying realization that the belief in such a concept required evidence.

RE: additional - but that's putting the cart before the horse. I do not "consider" whether there could or could not be evidence possible of things that are beyond my present capacity to imagine. Assuming that Jesus was who he claimed, before he came there would be no basis for a presumption concerning the possibility of evidence existing to establish whether anyone could walk on water. One is not presuming that such evidence can't exist: one is rather evaluating it as it comes along with no real presumption concerning the possibility of such unforseen evidence.

Were evidence to be presented that could establish the existence of the supernatural, then one would have a basis for determining whether or not there were any God or Gods.

Answer 2

for sure no longer, yet as skeptical rationalists we ought to take the tentative stance that what there is not any evidence for, does no longer exist. we would want to be incorrect. This stance has the great element about being accessible, in idea, to teach incorrect, through looking evidence of the existence of the entity or relationship in question. This makes it scientifically sound. If we anticipate that some thing does exist even as there is not any evidence, there is not any thanks to disprove it, subsequently no thanks to attempt it and therefore no thanks to ideal and strengthen our idea. because a lack of evidence can not falsify your declare, because there is not any evidence in any respect to do some thing. no longer in elementary words is that unscientific, yet you do not have any foundation to anticipate that stance in the first position. that's stagnation, a lifeless end, the right of reason. and also you do not have any logically consistent argument no longer to position self assurance in any of the different limitless options we would want to have, as a lot as and which consists of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. that's extra perfect to stay with the risk that you're incorrect, yet when for you to correctly be shown that you're incorrect (that you'll get suitable fairly); than stay with the risk that you're incorrect, and if so you'd be doomed to be incorrect forever. No, i visit pick the former option, thanks very a lot.

Answer 3

I think the problem here is how we folks perceive God. Let me give an example; what if, for the next hundred years, humanity become so advance that we are capable of planetary colonization. And decided to seed a lifeless planet with simple life forms and ultimately this simple life forms will become like us. a thinking being. Unknowing to them, their planet is being run by humans. Most of them would start to ponder about their existence and their purpose in this universe Their scholar would probably suggest that life on their planet was a evolutionary process and everything happened by natural selection. Religious folks will claim that their God is the creator of the universe and because of his eternal love, their existence exist . Only few, and considered by many as nuthead, would say an advance folks from another planet who got bored and decided to have themselves a brand new planet called CX3-11P.

To reply to your comment: thats why my statement was "how we folks perceive God", It depends how we define God. What's our criteria? Does he need to be the creator of everything? Or not necessary a creator but a catalyst of creation.? What if the universe itself gave birth to a first eternal race who propagate life to other worlds, can we call them our God? Or are we just calling God whoever we think responsible life on this planet? Does he need to be perfect or complete? What if the creator himself is not a perfect being, is he qualify for Godly status?

So you see, the issue here is definition, before we look for evidence we should know what we are looking for. Thats why if you carefully look into my simple example above, you would understand more why we need to address the definition of God.

Got it?

Answer 4

well first of all atheists arent asswholes and we arent rebelious like christians say we are good people.atheism is when you dont beleive in a deity or higher power.it isnt necesarily the fact that there isnt and evidenceits just that sometimes religion doest make sense..if there was any highier powers then why do mere mortals have to fight over who is right,why cant the god(s)just settle the wars that are caused...i have figured this out on my own and im only 13

Answer 5

Those who claim they want to be atheist are just saying they are going to convience themselves that thier is not God. And by doing so they hope that they will not have to answer to God for anything.

Funny thing about Atheist, is when Tragedy strikes, they always seem to need help from the same God they cliam does not exist.

It's strange to me.

Answer 6

I think Atheism is silly. I love god, and I believe that he does exist. I know these are my own views, but the way I see it. God exists and there's enough evidences for me to believe in him.

Answer 7

Atheism is the result of a lazy attitude toward creation and God's existence. It's easy to claim there is no God. I challenge everyone who feels there is no God to really read and STUDY the Bible! then, make your decision.

Answer 8

It is neither.

It is the position that if you can not know about something, then belief or presumption of knowledge about that thing (i.e. religion) is utter nonsense.

Answer 9

Human science has a broader belief on faith alone than religious beliefs

Answer 10

technically it results from the lack of imagination