Of God and men...can you answer this honestly?

Question

I have heard it said before that "The Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence" in relation to God's existence.

I am an investigator for work. In the investigation field, the absence of evidence IS evidence of absence. Plainly put, if, at the scene of a crime, there is no evidence that X was present, it is safe to conclude that X did not perpetrate the crime. This goes for all evidence - microscopic, blood splatter evidence, trace evidence, DNA evidence, etc.

Now, in all fields of science, there is an astonishing absence of evidence for God's existence. Biology, Geology, Astronomy, Physics, Chemistry - all have come away with absolutely no evidence of God's existence.

So, is it not then safe to conclude that, due to lack of evidence, God is absent from the equation?



Respectfully submitted - so please respond with equal respect.

Jin - if science is unable to, it is because IT is unable to prove itself. Science would not be unwilling to - they have found the causes for nearly every other thing that was once attributed to Gods...such as thunder and lightening...

Tomoyo - you are only correct when speaking of inanimate objects. Paintings are inanimate. Humans are not.

Ms. coktoast...thats probably because youre not an atheist - youre obviously agnostic.

gatech-d - flawed premise. Just because He exists and shows himself DOES NOT mean that everyone would be forced to beleive and love him - you would still have a choice to beleive and to love him. How many Christians deny facts, such as evolution? Its a fact, it exists, yet they still refuse to beleive it. So, your entire premise is flawed upon that.

Spacebunny - nice job reminding me of phrenology!! However...
How science works: Come up with a hypothesis, test it extensively, if the testing always results in the same result, a theory is born. If results do not match testing, start over with another hypothesis.
How religion works: Come up with ideaology. Rather than test it, claim it is the Only Truth, then look only for evidence that fits your theory, meanwhile ignoring all evidence that doesnt fit theory.
NOT GOOD SCIENCE!

Azarus - flawed again. "Creation" doesnt require a creator. You claim to have proof, yet fail to submit any proof. What you call creation, I call evolution.

donkelmac - Im sure your personal experience proves everything. And yes, mental illness does sound the same, no matter where you are.

Answer 1

I agree with you except for the fact that there is an abundance of evidence for God's existence.

Let me give you a simple argument called The Teleological Argument (the word “teleology” has reference to purpose or design). This argument goes something like this: There is purposeful design in the Universe and design demands a designer.

Now, is this a valid argument? Well, we detect design all the time. If you find an arrowhead on a deserted island, you assume it was made by someone, even if you can’t see the designer. We can tell the difference between a message written in the sand and the results of the wind and waves on the sand. The carved heads of the presidents on Mt. Rushmore are clearly different from erosional features.

Psalm 19:1 says, “The heavens are telling of the glory of God; and their expanse is declaring the work of His hands.” As Dr. Werner Von Braun said, “One cannot be exposed to the law and order of the universe without concluding that there must be design and purpose behind it all.”

So let’s talk a bit about this design. How about our fine tuned, tailor made, universe? This is called the “anthropic principle” (From the Greek word Anthropos—man). This principle is that the universe in general, and our solar system in particular, appears to have been specially designed for human existence.

Listen to what some scientists have said:
Murphy and Ellis, “The symmetries and delicate balances we observe in the universe require an extraordinary coherence of conditions and cooperation of laws and effects, suggesting that in some sense they have been purposely designed. That is, they give evidence of intention, realized both in the setting of the law of physics and in the choice of boundary conditions for the universe.”
F.J. Dyson, “As we look out into the universe and identify the many accidents of physics and astronomy that have worked together to our benefit, it almost seems as if the universe must in some sense have known we were coming.”
And I like what Philip Ball said, “Our Universe is so unlikely that we must be missing something.”

And look at what we have with this earth in our solar system and galaxy.
-The right kind of galaxy.
-The right place in the galaxy.
-The right kind of star.
-The right distance from that star.
-The right sized planet.
-The right spin of the planet.
-The proper magnetic field.
-The high composition of carbon.
-The high water content.
-The nitrogen and oxygen atmosphere.
-The size and distance of our moon.

And on and on. The thing you have to realize is, any slight variation in any of these would make the earth uninhabitable as we know it. Boy, we sure are lucky, aren’t we?

Now, what about life? Life is more than just physics and chemistry; life is built on information. Tightly coiled up inside the center of every cell, this information is contained in that molecule of heredity, called “DNA” which has a digital code inscribed alone its spine.

Now, information is something different from matter and energy. For example, a book contains information, but the paper and ink are not the information—they can only transmit it.

Life is an information-based process in which the DNA contained within each cell is based on a genetic language using four nucleotide bases. It has been said that if transcribed into English, the DNA in the human genome would fill a 300-volume set of encyclopedias of approximately 2,000 pages each.

It has also been said that if the amount of information in just a pinhead volume of DNA was written into paperback books, it would make a pile 500 times the distance from here to the moon. The knowledge currently stored in all of the libraries of the world would only take up about 1% of that. DNA is by far the densest information storage mechanism in the known universe.

And we know from experience: If you have a computer program, you need a computer programer. Any time we find information, whether it is in the form of a hieroglyphic inscription or a newspaper article, there was invariably an intelligent agent behind that information.

Evolutionists have not been able to explain the origin of information in cells; information has not been shown to spontaneously arise from matter and energy. The existence of the information can only be explained through a pre-existing intelligence that put it there.

Dr. Werner Gitt, Professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology, said, “A code system is always the result of a mental process (it requires an intelligent origin or inventor) … It should be emphasized that matter as such is unable to generate any code. All experiences indicate that a thinking being voluntarily exercising his own free will, cognition, and creativity, is required ...There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this.”

I think we can therefore deduce that the huge amount of information in living things must have originally come from an intelligence, which had to have been far superior to ours, as scientists are revealing every day.

Answer 2

Is it not also possible that the investigator is not looking for the correct kind of evidence? I don't think there is a way to prove whether or not God has been in a place, because there is no way to define what you are looking for. Before the advent of fingerprinting and other forensic testing techniques, investigators used head measurements to determine personality types, visual evidence, different standards for what constituted a "reliable witness," and so on. With our current scientific methods, there is no way to even begin a search for God. In fact, I think the way science approaches a problem negates the possibility of defining God except in terms of his referential nature to the physical world. There is a gap of knowledge that cannot bridge the uncertainty between the scientific and religious or philosophical realms. If one wishes to know whether God was there, one must define what God is and what he isn't, then devise a test to determine whether he is or has been there or not. I've never heard of such a test that was reliable.

EDIT: I never said religion was good science! I think that's one of the "failures to communicate" that exists between the two camps. There's no way to make it good science and still maintain its religious identity. The failure to define God as a testable hypothetical entity illustrates that very point. Phrenology--THAT was the term I couldn't think of...thanks!

Answer 3

You see, that's all well and good, and I agree with you...on one level. But when we're talking about God, things change. You know the saying "seeing is believing"? God doesn't want us to live that way. We have to have faith. He doesn't want to show Himself to us directly. If He did, everyone would believe because they had no other choice? Forced love and acceptance is not true.

Most people's difficulty is in just believing that God is God and operates outside of our system. Imagine if you will, a two dimensional world. There are lines, but nothing 3D. We would not be able to fathom a 3D world. We have left and right and up and down, but that's it. If someone suggested a forward and backward we would think they are crazy. Perhaps God is like this. Perhaps he is, in a sense, in a fourth dimension (yeah, I know some people think time is, but let's just say the fourth dimension is God.) It takes faith to believe in that fourth dimension.

Answer 4

A strong belief in God sometimes gives you a feeling so wonderful, that it feels like you are floating on air and you begin to speak an unknown language reffered to as tongues.

That is enough evidence for me proving that God was communicating with me spiritually. You might not feel it because you are doubting His existence.

Another thing, no matter where in the world you come from, when someone speaks tongues, it always sounds the same.

Answer 5

Here is the trouble with your analogy.

As a crime investigator, you are looking for evidence of the criminal, so you can find them.

You are NOT looking for eveidence that there IS a criminal.

Evidence shows that God exists (creation cannot have happend without a creator). What a criminal investigator SHOULD be looking for is which one of the ones believed IS God, not does God exist (does the criminal?).

Answer 6

From my perspective, no. This is why I am not fond of being labeled an atheist. I don't *know* that there isn't a god any more than another person knows there is one. I think it falls into the realm of the unknowable, which is why it's called a faith. It has nothing to do with science, and scientific processes cannot be applied to it. You feel it, or you don't.

Answer 7

Maybe the evidence is there but we don't have the means to process it yet. Took a while to pin crime on a lot of people until DNA.

Answer 8

I totally agree. Just about everything on this planet, organic or inorganic, is capable of leaving some type of scientific evidence behind. I don't see how that wouldn't be applicable to God as well.

Answer 9

To deny the existence of a Creator behind creation is the same as denying the artist who transformed an empty canvas into a wonderful masterpiece.

Answer 10

God is not part of this evil world,otherwise He'd be walking around here like the rest of us. That's why He sent his son into the world. & He cannot be explained,only by Him. He's a tangible yet intangible force. & that's how it's supposed to be.