Serious question regarding Science v. God...?

Question

Ive asked this question in the religion section, and I am now curious for responses from those of you that are more science minded...

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?


What say you??

Answer 1

"The Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence"

This is true. "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 is not true. If you have no evidence that X was present, then all you have is no evidence that X was present. If you have evidence that X was somewhere else at the time (an alibi), then THAT is evidence of absence.

There is only one way to conclude that science contains no evidence for the existence of God. That is to start with the assumption that God does not exist, and to rule out all evidence to the contrary. Science is full of things we don't understand. For starters, why does DNA work the way it does, and where did it come from? Where did all the mass and energy of the universe come from? Why does the physical universe have the properties that it has? Change most of them even a tiny bit, and the physical universe as we know it becomes impossible. To say the universe was created by a power outside the universe is quite plausible. If you wish, consider the fact that we have no other plausible explanation of the universe as the "absence of evidence" supporting the idea of intelligent design.

Answer 2

"the absence of evidence IS evidence of absence"

I dont agree with this
If something is not there , this absence is not an evidence that it is not there, that is there is no proof that it is not there.

I doubt that . "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".
Generally yes, but if X is a suspect, then you will try to find proofs that X was ( or was not there ) there. If you still found no proff that X was there and also no proof that X was not there then you can only conclude anything else but : I dont know if X was there.

If there is no evidence of God to exist , than it is not proved that God doesnt exist.

for the record I dont think there is a God.

Answer 3

Yeah I'm with ya for practical purposes, especially when you consider the history of religion and where the God concept comes from.

However, an important assumption in your reasoning is that an all powerful God would leave evidence of its existence for us to observe. Sure we can see that as religion has evolved, and previous assumed 'evidences' for the existence of Gods have unravelled, religions have more and more made a virtue of the lack of evidence, saying it is deliberate. But logically we still can't 100% assume that they are wrong.

It is remotely possible that, by a fantastic coincidence, our anthropomorphising minds hit on the right answer and there is a hidden being behind everything.

But we have no idea what that hidden being wants from us, if anything. There are infinite equal possibilities. Therefore it becomes irrelevant to us (and extremely unlikely anyway).

Answer 4

I say thats exactly how I came to be of the belief that there is no god/s of any kind. Now I take it one step further... just because there currently is no evidence does not mean that we wont one day find it. For example, is it not possible that when examining a crime scene there is evidence there in the room that we humans are merely unaware of or uncapable of detecting as of yet? What if the evidence is there but we are merely uncapable of processing it at this point in time... not to say that there is any evidence that proves anything either way but there could be. I see so much advancement in the field of study you are speaking of just compared to 30 years ago.. I mean look how far DNA has come in terms of investigative science. I agree that absence of evidence is evidence of absence but I cannot with good conscience state that absence of evidence is proof of the non-existence of evidence. Look at it this way... currently there is absolutely no tangible evidence for the existence of sentient extraterrestrial beings, that does not inherently prove that such beings do not exist.. How can it? The only evidence that could prove that is solid concrete evidence that points to the contrary. As it stands with regards to the question of god/s from the lack of evidence I believe that god/s do not exist, but I cannot know that for certain until we have either concrete evidence that proves god/s exist or concrete evidence that proves god/s do not exist. We may believe either way based on the evidence or lack thereof that we currently have, but none of us can say with certainty that the evidence is not there for us to answer the question definitively once and for all no matter what the outcome. I fI was at a crime scene and by some stroke of chance did not leave any evidence behind like footprints, hairs, DNA, fingerprints... it does not immediately prove 100% that I was not there at all ever it just proves that nobody has found the evidence to prove it. See what I mean? Just because there currently is no real evidence to prove god/s exist or not doesnt mean that the evidence doesnt exist, waiting for us to find it and interpret it to arrive at the truth. It only means that based on the current consensus of evidence we can reasonably conclude to believe either way... until the burden of proof is met not a single one of us can say "I Know" but we are all entitled to say "I dont know for sure but this is what I Believe"

The evidence may be absent, but the absence of evidence does not mean it doesnt exist somewhere, waiting for us to find it. Back in the day people may have concluded that sweat or spit was not real evidence at a crime scene and had no real advantage.. however today the DNA we can extract from sweat or spit is real evidence that can be used to conclusively prove a person is guilty or innocent. All that time the evidence was there for us to find, it just took us a while to be able to understand and interpret and recognize it as evidence.

Answer 5

I agree. I have never seen any evidence for the existance of a god, Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, or the Verucca Gnome. That means I can pretty much say they don't exist.

EDIT: As to what Doctor said above, Einstein did NOT believe in god. He stated so MANY times, and was widely critized for it. As such, he would not have attributed the wrongs in society to the lack of a god.

Quantum mechanics requires no intelligence. What, did you think the world just ceased to exist before we showed up? QM refers to the smallest scales imaginable, not the universe as a whole.

Answer 6

What would you consider evidence for the existence of God? Most of the things that come to mind for me would be intangible, and therefore not in the realm of, say, chemistry or biology.

There is also the problem of paradigms- you see what you are looking for, and only what you are looking for. Surely you are familiar with this in your line of work.

Therefore as one with scientific training, I have to say that I can probably not provide you with anything to convince you of God's existence that you have not already dismissed. Science is about describing the world and the universe as it has unfolded, and discovering the principles involved.

As for the First Cause of the "big bang", science is necessarily mute. We just don't know, probably can never know, about causality outside the dimensions that include time. Even the question makes little sense. With no time frame, "first" has no meaning.

I have to take a pragmatic approach. I know that not everything is knowable. I do know that belief in God and Christ works for me, sustains me, and keeps me trying to help my fellow human beings, and gives me respect for the complex web of life I see around me. Proving things is a game invented by science, and the rules do not permit spiritual or subjective evidence.

If you want to go down that road, you will have to abandon Science for awhile and try something new. You have to make the leap of faith, into subjectivity. It's not as far as you might think. Spiritual experience is outside, but contains, the world of science. So you don't have to abandon science to believe in God, boneheaded creationists notwithstanding.

Answer 7

There are several ways of looking at this issue. (By the way, it is nice to see an intelligent/rational question on this issue.)

First, in science it is virtually impossible to prove a negative. Therefore, it is scientifically nearly impossible to prove there is no God.

Second, Einstein made an interesting point about evil being the 'absence' of God. Many people use the presence of evil as an argument (they think of it as proof, but evidence is NOT proof) that there is no God. Einstein brilliantly destroys this argument with a couple of simple analogies from nature: just as dark is the absence of light, and cold is the absence of heat, evil (evil actions by man) is the absence of God. From this perspective, evil becomes evidence for God (because there is so much in the world that is NOT evil).

Lastly, modern experiments in quantum physics indicate that nothing exists in the physical plane unless something intelligent observes it. (There is a nice discussion of this in the book "In Search of Schrodinger's Cat".) This is a powerful, scientific argument that intelligence precedes the physical universe. God, of course, is a long-standing concept of a 'higher intelligence'.

Thanks for a great question - asked intelligently!

Best wishes.

Answer 8

I just wanted to kindly point out to you that your logic is flawed.

If at the scene of a crime, you find no evidence that X was there, X still COULD have been there, and simply left no traces. Also, you might simply have not found the evidence that X left.

Faith and logic (science) are not opposing sides, they simply have nothing to do with each other. When you try to use one to explain the other, then it's about as silly as using a vacuum cleaner to try to cook a steak.

Answer 9

Advanced science to facts ; together in one ; reckon ; E=mc2 ! Human compute truth. Record= again+Heart and Mind. Looking in spirit of all things equal= even the definitions of words are of spirit, Rectify= To make right ; correct, amend. Recti- = To guide. Recto= A right hand page ; on the right (page) Recreation= Refreshment of body or Mind (bind to+creation). Compute= impute. The advanced system is within the Kingdom of God = Luke 13:29 And they shall come from the east, and from the west, and from the north, and from the south, and shall sit down in the kingdom of God. Luke 17:21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you. Luke 19:11 And as they heard these things, he added and spake a parable, because he was nigh to Jerusalem, and because they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear. Acts 8:12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Romans 14:17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. Colossians 4:11 And Jesus, which is called Justus, who are of the circumcision. These only are my fellowworkers unto the kingdom of God, which have been a comfort unto me. Blessed be the children of God.

Answer 10

If you look at a building, would you think it was just made out of nowhere? would you think that every intricate part of making a building just fell on top of each other to make the final product of the building? Its pretty obvious that the building was made by someone. The fact that there is a building present presents the evidence of which a building maker was there. Now, When we look at ourselves, I think the human body is the most amazing masterpiece of work anyone can create. When my baby brother was born, I was amazed to see the size of his little body. He had all the parts I had but miniature. So i think, The fact that we all live and function, IS the evidence for which - there has to be a creator. Aren't we more complex than a building? We can't possibly be a bunch of atoms thrown together just by luck. I believe it had to be a certain force driving us into existence...GOD