There is no scientific proof of God, therefore he doesn't exist, true?

Question

I am very confused by this athiestic logic. I have heard some athiests say they just don't know if he exists (which I can understand and even respect), but others are 100% sure that he's not real because he hasn't been/can't be scientifically observed.

What doesn't make sense to me is that scientists don't think this way - they don't patently deny the existence of things they haven't discovered yet. The point is, if nothing could possibly exist apart from what we have scientific proof of, then aren't we saying we know all we need to know and that scientific discovery has run its course?

When athiests say for sure they KNOW that he doesn't exist, it feels more like dogma (religion without basis) than science. If it's your religion/dogma, then why don't you admit that it's a spiritual/religious decision that you're making vs. trying to use science as an excuse?

Please help me understand your thought processes.

The Russell’s teapot example makes no sense to me and seems to be not even close to the point. You don’t have people en masse claiming to have a personal relationship with a teapot in orbit or flying cheese or chocolate monkeys or whatever-the-heck other crazy analogy that you’re trying to use, so that argument is inane at best. You do have a large body of people that have had personal experiences with the living God which started from a small grass-roots movement about 30 AD which is still alive and thriving today. That’s a little different than flying cheese. Come on, can’t you do better than chocolate monkeys? Help me out here…

love_ya-lotz – you’re the only one making sense. I still don’t agree with you, but at least you’re logical.

palomnik - I can understand your logic as well, but it speaks to a complete lack of understanding of God's nature as it's described in the Bible.

I'm getting some very interesting answers. Thank you all for your input.

I am still having trouble understanding how you equate the fallacies of the Tooth Fairy, Easter Bunny, Santa Clause, etc. with the supposed fallacies of belief in God. How many fully functioning mature adults do you know that actually believe in Santa? How many fully functioning mature adults do you know that believe in Christ and claim to have had a spiritual encounter with him? It's just two different things and it makes it sound like you haven't really thought this through which was kinda my point to begin with!!!!

Answer 1

An Atheist is a person who honestly seeks truth like in a court of law, and determines that in all ones search, there is no God. How many have done that? There are not many atheist. An Agnostic is a person who, after intensive study, determines that he/she doubts that God exists. There are not many agnostics. That only leaves the other definition, Ignorant. In Greek terminology that translates as "dumb on purpose".

Answer 2

The reason that I am an atheist is that I did not find a single reliable proof or reasonable argument for theism, whether in the RCC where I was raised, or in Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Wicca, Paganism (they are different), Satanism, or any of the other religions I studied.

That alone wouldn't have made me an atheist, though. The reason that I am an atheist is both that there is no reason to believe theism is true, and that there are reasons to believe that atheism is true. Obviously I don't know 100% that there is no god, because if I did then the entire matter would be settled. I am an atheist, though, because I am 95% sure that that is what is right... there are a lot of rotten atheist arguments, but those do not negate the really good ones. Simply as a matter of what can and cannot be proven, I do not belive that there is a god, because no god can be proven. I like to go with what can be proven, because if not, how am I supposed to know if it is true?

You are right in saying that 100% conviction is dogma, though... blind atheism is just as dumb as blind theism... there has to be some really good reasoning and logic behind the way people think they way they do, and really while there is great evidence to believe that atheism is right, that evidence is not conclusive, simply because we don't know everything.

It is like saying that the speed of light is the fastest you can ever go... it is objectively true, a matter of science rather than faith, and it can be proven... but we can't be 100% sure, because we don't know everything about the universe/subatomic particles/energy/et cetera. Maybe there is something that goes faster than light, but most probably there is not, and there is not any way right now to be absolutely sure if there is or is not.

People will say that that makes me an agnostic rather than an atheist, but that is not true... I am an atheist because that is what seems most logical and true now, based on what we know now... our understanding of the truth may change as we learn more, but the all the current facts point toward god not existing. And it is not hiding behind science... I do not hide behind facts any more than someone hides behind honesty.

As for the Russel's teapot idea, it is indeed stupid to compare a supposedly almighty being with a fluorescent toaster or whatever else one wants to use. That is a bad analogy, and faulty logic. There are far better reasons that discount the existence of god, like violating its own nature, history, and other things that there is not room to mention. But it is also faulty logic to rely on personal accounts, as emotions often skew or obscure reason, and they are subjective anyway. If you were going to count what people experienced themselves, you'd have to do just that... count what people experienced. So if someone experienced god, that's one point for theism. If someone has never experienced god, that is one point for atheism.

Also, I figure, why make a Rube Goldberg device out of it all? Why make things unneccessarily complicated? For example, people ask what was the first thing ever, what was the first cause... atheists say they don't know, or there was no first cause because it is all circular, or things just happened spontaneously. Theists say that god made things start. Well what started god then? Then theists say they don't know, or there was no first cause of god because he always was/it is circular, or he just came into being spontaneously. The only difference there is an extra step that may or may not be true... and in making things unnecessarily complicated, it becomes a Rube Goldberg machine of sorts.

Answer 3

Precise definitions of the words religion/dogma/spiritual aside...

I'm not a big fan of atheists who proclaim that they know for a fact that God doesn't exist. It's a little embarrassing for the rest of us who are trying as best we can to stick purely to reason.
However...
The branch of atheism that believes fervently in the non-existence of God is, as you said, more of a faith based system than it probably would like to believe. However, it shouldn't be confused with proper religious spirituality. Total Atheism takes a leap of faith when saying that God doesn't exist, but it's a far smaller one than most theists make. Not all atheists, actually, the vast majority of atheists, are not like this by the way. Most of us, as you probably know, concede that science has yet to disprove Supernatural beings, but maintain that the probability of their existence is so unfeasibly small, that it's probably not worth thinking about. The existance of the popular, all powerful, all surrounding, cloud dwelling creationist version of this being is even more improbable again. So, most atheists are in fact, very one sided agnostics.

Most atheists think something along these lines.
Can we prove the existance of God? Presently, no. Does that mean he does not exist, no. Does this mean the probability of his existence and the probability of his non-existence are equal, not by a long shot.

So, Total Atheism definitely has some faith tossed in there, but its a whole lot less than what you'll find in most religions. All they're saying is that an invisible, improbable being doesn't exist, as opposed to most major religions, which not only say he does, but also that he has a vested interest in all of us personally, and is totally omnipotent. I think it would be wrong to call it dogmatic or religious.

If on the other hand, God was to show up in the morning and set all us one-sided agnostics straight, and these total atheists still maintained that he did not exist, then it really would be a religion, or rather, the exact opposite of a religion.

As for the teapot example, I don't think you're thinking about it properly. Religion isn't something that we humans are born believing. Imagine if, for 2000 years, people had been proclaiming the existence of this teapot. Imagine if this message was carried across the globe on both the edge of a sword (mostly) and the tip of an olive branch. Imagine people being persecuted for denying the existence of the teapot, imagine it being woven into the school curriculum. Wouldn't that leave a lasting mark on the human psyche. Wouldn't we then, truly feel the presence of this teapot, just as a Christian feels God. Does this mean it exists, no. Does it add to the possibility that it exists, no. How could you tell if a celestial teapot experience was due to actual contact with the teapot, or simply down to delusion. Again, the chances that no such human-teapot interaction took place are far better.
The fact that a teapot is an inanimate object does not diminish the conclusions of this example. After all, even if there is a God, who's to say that he can, or even would communicate with Earth.

Besides, I'm an Atheist, and I've had plenty of divine experiences. Many is the time I stood surrounded by natures glories, felt the unconditional love of my family, or marvelled at a feat of human achievement, and felt warm, and special, and connected and very very lucky, even blessed you could say. This didn't have anything to do with God. Anybody, regardless of faith, would have similar reactions. There are also times I've gotten over diseases, dodged serious injury and have my wishes (however humble they may be) granted, without the guiding hand of a heavenly patriarch/matriarch. Why it is so hard for some people to accept that humans can get healthy, lucky and fulfilled without the intervention of a god is something I honestly don't understand.

Answer 4

I think that we should all get ourselves out of this primitive mindset and start looking at the real, demonstrable evidence. The best argument would be one that says, yes we should believe in the scientific, incontrovertible evidence, but that does not mean we cant respect the good ideas that have come from these earlier belief systems. They were all thought up by people who did not have the benefits of modern education or scientific understandings about how things worked. Doesn't mean they didn't produce some good ideas though, like not killing people, respecting parents etc etc. These books should not be taken literally though. If we did that we would be in a sorry state. We would not be eating this or that or the other, we would be selling our daughters off into slavery etc etc. Just look at the essence of the ideas, and don't get carried away by the more primitive explanations.

Answer 5

They used to say that the proof is in the pudding.

You are very right about that. Lack of 'proof' doesn't mean proof. (I find it hard to think about having a religion that is an anti-religion.) Maybe looking on the outside doesn't do it for some folks, so what's wrong with looking on the inside.

You can't prove that Love exists either. Once you can prove that, God is not far from it.

By the way, Hawking never proposed the idea of The Big Bang as a theory, merely an idea that other physicists might think about and work on. And if it wasn't God who initiated 'The Event,' what was it? It is also described by physicists as being a singular event, (where the laws of physics do not apply.)

Answer 6

Yes, "knowing" that there is no god requires a leap of faith, as you've said. Though it is a logical fallacy, it is the default position to assume something that hasn't been proven or even observed yet, that there is no reason to assume it does exist. Especially concerning matters outside the realm of the ordinary.

It's actually quite hard to explain the concept without coming off as condescending or offensive, but I'll try my best to avoid it.

If I told you that the sun was once a sentient being, you probably wouldn't believe me and rightfully so, because this claim of mine is out of the ordinary and there has been no proof or anything pointing in the direction that my claim is true. Now strictly, you have to leave the possibility open that it COULD be true, as it has not been disproven either, but in practice you will still hold that it isn't.

Answer 7

I agree that it is improper to say that one knows that there is no god. There is no way to know that for certain... However, it is possible to say that you don't believe there is a god.

There is good basis for people to not believe there is a god. What has been discovered so far through scientific inquiry is a world apart from what is taught in all religious texts. The more we learn the smaller the gaps that god fits so nicely into become. In this day and age it's surprising that so many people still believe there is a god. I am 99.8% certain that no such being exists. Too many people today ignore the facts because they are comfortable with the idea that someone is looking out for them. There's no excuse to be religious these days other than ignorance of science and logic.

Educated people who believe there is a god are doing so by choice... there is no real reason to believe such things.

Answer 8

Excellent question/point that you make here. And you hit the nail on the head. When an atheist says that he/she knows that God doesn't exist, they are being dogmatic rather than scientific in their approach.

The part that gets me is the logical fallacies that they use to "prove" the non-existence of God. For an example, people used religion as an excuse for their land/power grabs, reference Spanish Inquisition, Crusades, etc. Obviously it is bad any time a nation/leader uses a particular philosophy for a pretense for their land/power grab, ask the people who survived the Khmer Rouge if it makes any difference to them that the people who killed their loved ones did it in the name of the people.

One particular problem with scientific materialism, as expressed by the religion of atheism-- let's call a duck a duck, if it has webbed feet, waddles and quacks like a duck, its a duck-- is that they assume that the state of scientific discovery is static, that it is now as it will always be and forever will not change, which is very much a dogmatic approach where they substitute science for God and bada bing, you have a religion.

The particularly humorous thing about it is that most professed atheists can't even understand the science that underpins their belief structure... for example, ask a member of the Church of Science, Global Warming denomination if they can explain the scientific methodology to back up their claims, and they say all good scientists say (fill in the blank), and I believe them, which is a blanket statement of faith. Likewise with evolution (and I'm not a young earth 7 day dogmatic), when confronted with a question about why there are no bridge species between modern and ancient species, they say, because we just haven't discovered them yet. This also requires a leap of faith that is unscientific to its core.

If a scientist professes to be agnostic, that's an honest answer. Any time a person professes agnosticism it is a credible explanation of their religious beliefs, and implies serious thought on the matter. When a scientist professes atheism, their science is in itself suspect, because they are implying a bias to their work because they are starting with a set of assumptions and aiming to prove their assumptions through their work. Its a dogmatic approach that produces bad philosophy (see Dawkins) and even worse science, since it is being approached from a close mindedness that is anti-scientific.

Answer 9

My thoughts about this peculiar question is giving appoint to the atheist even thought i am a catholic. you can't prove that god existed, hell you can't even prove that all the events that happened in the bible existed. It is easy to not believe that the events that happened in the bible didn't happen the way that it was written. That is why we have faith in our hearts that the things in the bible really did happen. Also you can't believe that god does exist, but you also can't 100% say that he doesn't you can't see atoms but we know that they are there, the scientific theories are just that theories. They just try to make the most logical sense of how the earth and the universe may have come to exist because you can't prove that god does exist, I think that god made the world by science and there properties but he set everyting into the motion and from what he did was converted into the ignorance of advanced science by human kind many milleniums ago.

Answer 10

Weather God exists is up to the believer. It is faith that a christian or person believes truly in their heart not what they see. These atheists are exactly that, non believers. If you believe that there is something good out there then there is also something bad. As far as the scientists believing, scientists goes into there careers with the knowledge that just because it hasn't been proven yet doesn't mean that it doesn't exists. It is what is in your heart is what you should believe in,not what is in your head. But think about how the world got started, both theories.

Answer 11

Just a comment.
Someone here just said you don't assume something existsbecause there is a lack of evidence.
How true. But I think you should give us the point that we do have evidence. Evidence is not proof, but it is physical and testimonial and a matter of record, which is used to build proof. The threshold of proof in matters of Faith can be highly intuitive instead of purely logical. That is not to say that all smart people are atheists. Many of the brightest minds such as Galileo were intuitive in their arguments with the logically arguing Church inquisitors.The church was wrong but Galileo did not make a convincing logical, mathematical argument to convince the church officials, who were better trained in math and logic than was he. Believe it or not he made a religious argument.