Where is the scientific evidence for the non-existence of God?

Question

Please pay attention to how this question is being asked, and if you're going to tell me the question is not valid take your "answer" somewhere else.

This question is not directed exclusively to athieists (though I'm sure they will be the first to pounce on it with their 100% logical reasoning).

*If you can tell me there is scientific evidence for the non-existence of something, and you've studied scientific research methods, then tell me what methodology cancels the null hypothesis claiming God exists? Tell me what descriptive or inferential statistics support the non-existence of God? Don't assume God necessarily must be directly observable (even though this is a prerequisite for what scientists want to call "fact").

Please, no more answers like, "If there's no evidence then there's no reason for me to believe..." I'm very tired of that one.

This claim (from below) shows you how some people have been locked in a lab for too long:

When no evidence can be presented to cancel a null hypothesis it is automatically accepted at 100% confidence???

Not in the real world!

Are atheists really so desperate for an "answer" to a question about religion and spirituality that they have to put God and the "Easter bunny" into the same category?

:)

Anyone refuting evidence of God (as a creator) please tell me:

How do you get something from nothing? How do you get the birth of a universe in the absence of something that provided the matter (or gases or energy)?

Why is it so "scientific" to dismiss God as a creator when you have no other explanation???? The only reason I can see is that a person (atheist) has forced him or herself to become a radical empiricist. The only thing that matters to these people is 100% logical thinking and scientific methodologies that rely on observation.

From below, a person who wants to dictate for all of us that the world is 100% logical:


"Quick logic check fellow answerers: there are at least three conditions for "Burden of Proof" to apply:
1. An acceptable level of proof (reasonable suspicion, balance of probabilities, etc.) must be set.
2. One side of the argument must have submitted evidence (and lack of evidence for the other side doesn't count) to be disproved.
3. The side with burden of proof must be determined."


I don't know who you logisticians think you are fooling. The world is not 100% logical.

~~~~

Answer 1

No one can proove the non-existance of God. First, because there is no proof of his non-existance, and second because you can't proove a negative.

Answer 2

There isn't any, because you can't prove that something doesn't exist. It's like asking for scientific evidence for the non-existence of unicorns. Science does, however, continue to amass evidence to suggest that a supreme being had no part in the universe's creation and continues to have no part in its evolution. Just think of how many things in the natural world used to be attritubted to angry gods, or demons, or whatever. The "god of the gaps" gets smaller and smaller as science progresses.

Answer 3

Quick logic check fellow answerers: there are at least three conditions for "Burden of Proof" to apply:
1. An acceptable level of proof (reasonable suspicion, balance of probabilities, etc.) must be set.
2. One side of the argument must have submitted evidence (and lack of evidence for the other side doesn't count) to be disproved.
3. The side with burden of proof must be determined.

Also, since someone else has thoughtfully brought up court analogies, the theist side has millenia of eye-witnesses and anecdotal evidence from around the world: shamanism, mystical experience, prophecy, and visions are universal phenomenae. Nor, if we are engaging burden of proof, may they be dismissed without greater evidence discrediting them.

Also, for the idea that one cannot prove a negative: if I begin with the theorem "There is no dime in my pocket," I can prove (or disprove) it by the simple expedient of putting my hand into said pocket.

Oh, and as for the idea that science doesn't prove what doesn't exist, it only proves what positively does: you have that backwards. Scientific knowledge advances by DISproving theories and hypotheses, which is why an hypothesis is only valid if it can be disproven.

Answer 4

You've stated the question in terms that can only be answered by: "There is no scientific evidence for the non-existence of God." And obviously that's the only answer you'll accept. But as you probably know, there is no "scientific evidence" for the "non-existence" of anything you care to mention - including fairies, Zeus, and the Easter Bunny. So what you have to ask YOURSELF is why you didn't bring up these other entities. Your sham impatience with obvious answers doesn't cover your flawed thinking. It's like asking: "What's 2 + 2 ..? And don't give me that old tired answer of 4." Sorry Bub, it IS 4.

Answer 5

Actually, when investigating existence/non-existence, the null hypothesis is the non-existence. In this case -- the null hypothesis is that there is no being capable of being described as deific, and the hypothesis would be that there is a being capable of being described as deific. Depending on how high you set your alpha and beta correction factors, the null is either accepted or rejected.

Since no possible experiment can provide evidence against the null hypothesis, the null hypothesis, scientifically, is properly accepted at 100% confidence.

You can't just reword your null-hypothesis to come up with a desired result. The null is always the negation statement.

Answer 6

Honestly, I cannot produce any evidence to prove the non-existence of god. As well, I've never seen any real physical evidence to prove that god does exist. The term "Exact Science" is in itself an oxy-moron, the outcome of any scientific method is purely limited to what we know. Considering that there are still many "unknowns", we cannot truly state that any conclusion that we come to is in fact "Exact". Whether you believe in science over religion or religion over science, it's a matter of faith. Every belief boils down to having faith that what you believe in is right.

As for me, I do not argue against the existence of god. I have not yet had any experiences that would necessitate a belief in god, but I do not believe that I would be penalized for not having blind faith in his/her existence. A truly loving god would not condemn someone for requiring truth and proof without having to unravel a bunch of riddles.

Answer 7

Take out the word "God" and substitute "Santa Claus," "the Easter Bunny," "the Wicked Witch of the West," "unicorns," or "dragons." Do you see what you're doing? You're asking for evidence that supernatural beings DON'T exist. It is not the job of science to prove that something DOESN'T exist; it is the job of the one making the positive claim to prove that it DOES. For thousands of years, people have believed in all sorts of gods, not just the one you know and love from the Bible. Can you prove that those gods don't exist?

I must say, that after all these thousands of years, you'd think the evidence for a supreme deity would be overwhelming. If God existed, nobody would have to ask questions such as yours, since he would have provided ample, undeniable, easily recognizable proof of his existence. You may be tired of hearing, "If there's no evidence then there's no reason for me to believe..." but it's true--evidence does not require belief. I do not believe in electricity, gravity, or magnetism because they are facts of life that are easily observable and testable, and I don't need to believe in them in order for them to work. God, according to Christians, does not work UNLESS you believe in him. How do you observe and test for the existence of the supernatural?

Answer 8

There is no evidence for the non-existence of god. By definition, there can't be. You have to have faith that there is no god.

There is no evidence for the existence of god either. At least, not any god espoused by this world's religions. Quote the bible all you want. It's just not there.

The absolutist postions of atheism and theism are both flawed. Have the courage to let it go and admit that we just don't know, and probably are not likely to ever know.

Answer 9

Personally I wouldn't even go there. It's not the job of science to disprove supernatural phenomena. I would point out that given the fact that theists are making the proposition that God exists they need to provide the evidence to prove it-disbelief requires no proof.

Answer 10

your question says "Don't assume God necessarily must be directly observable (even though this is a prerequisite for what scientists want to call "fact")"

Well you are right if it cannot be observed and tested it is not scientific. So any question about God cannot be scientific hence, sorry but reality is reality, your question is not valid.

You have no right to change definitions to suit your little question so i am giving you the real, actual answer despite your desires

Answer 11

In any court of law you must be able to prove that something exists, not prove that it doesn't exist. For thousands of years the religions have been trying to prove the existence of a man living in a cloud and continue to come up empty handed. Does God realize that if he would only show up for the masses, how many skeptics would instantly convert? What seems to be the problem?