I frequently encounter people saying that God is non-existence since there is no proof of His existence. Is this kind of argument logically correct?
2007-05-09 05:05:35 · 10 answers · asked by someGname 1 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
There is no proof either way. You can't prove that God doesn't exist. Can you also prove that Poseidon doesn't exist? If there is no proof of his non-existence, does it mean he does exist? Does absence of the proof of non-existence of subject 'A' prove the existence of subject 'A'? Certainly not.
2007-05-09 05:17:30 · answer #1 · answered by Dr. Adriano Nostromo 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The logical flaw in using the "lack of evidence" as evidence is in the issue of absolute negation. In order to absolutely prove the non-existence of God, you would require infinite knowledge, and an infinite being is what you are trying to disprove... This is the problem with "evidence against God" it will always be insufficient...
I would respectfully disagree with the notion that there is not evidence in support of God. The evidence from physics, biology, history... can mount a very persuasive argument for the existence of God. Many a skeptic has become a believer through setting out to debunk the Bible... I would also add that there is the testimony of the individual believers (Billions of them) that would testify as to the reality of God.
It would be logically correct for somone to say that they find "insufficient evidence" for belief in God, as that threshold may vary from person to person, but I would challenge the notion that there is "no evidence" as being an incorrect starting point...
2007-05-09 06:32:04 · answer #2 · answered by doc in dallas 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No I don't believe so, you cannot prove a negative in this case. There is no scientific test that can be done to check for a god therefore if he exists he is outside of science and falls into the paranormal category. Once your there you could start talking about ghosts and magical energy and pink unicorns. So, no we cannot absolutely definitively say they don't exist, but as of now they have no relation or testable effects on the real world and therefore might as well not exist until they can be proven to have such qualities.
2007-05-09 05:20:03 · answer #3 · answered by JLH 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Lack of evidence does not actually prove something doesn't exist. So if someone tells you that God definitely doesn't exist because there's no evidence of him, the argument is flawed. However, the default assumption is that something doesn't exist unless there is evidence for it. From a purely scientific point of view, it is assumed that God doesn't exist, but it is not known for sure whether or not he does because there is no scientific evidence one way or the other.
2007-05-09 05:18:04 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
If God did exist, he's the tyrannical psychotic sort of deity who could confirm we knew it. That shows he does no longer exist. various savants have pronounced that the Bible examine heavily and objectively is relatively sturdy evidence that its deity can not exist. A god who created the universe ought to no longer be as ignorant approximately it via fact the illiterate Hebrew or Egyptian shepherd who began the Bible.
2016-10-30 22:59:15 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is not proof of the non existence of a deity.
However, there is just as much evidence to support the existence of God is there is to support the existence of:
Unicorns.
Mermaids
The Loch Ness monster.
Zeus.
Odin.
Ra.
Dragons.
So, if you believe in God, do you believe in all these other things? If not why not?
2007-05-09 05:39:11 · answer #6 · answered by Simon T 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Well God is a spirit, He exists everywhere. No, he is not in a physical form...But then again, neither is Gravity..and yet we believe it though, Correct? Also the Air we breathe, Can we see that in a physical form, No, But we believe it because we are alive, correct.
Being able too physically see something, Doesn't always means it's not there...
2007-05-09 05:11:14 · answer #7 · answered by chersa 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes, it's called the logical default.
The claim of existence is the one that must be proven, not the claim of non-existence.
Do you believe in leprechans, since there's no evidence they don't exist, or, do you not believe in leprechans until you're presented evidence?
2007-05-09 05:12:40 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
No, for they would first have to prove that something must be provable before it could exist.
2007-05-09 05:12:04 · answer #9 · answered by Deof Movestofca 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, that argument is illogical. Lack of evidence of something is not evidence of something. LOL!
2007-05-09 05:13:41 · answer #10 · answered by unassailed 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋