Is the absence of god is proof that he doesn't exist?

Question

The alleged counter argument - "Prove god doesn't exist." is the sign of a weak intellect that is unwilling to put in effort to find answers. They make a claim then go sit on their lazy azz and tell someone else to do the work.

When a person or a party makes claim about something like the existence of god, evolution, gravity or the tooth fairy they are the ones that carry the "burden of proof".

In other words their argument that "Well prove he doesn't exist" is completely contrary to standards of the scientific method and general inquiry.

Let's say I make the claim that I can cure cancer. I bear the burden of proof. It is up to me to publish my findings and evidence so that the skeptics can evaluate my evidence and attempt to duplicate my results.

So, those that claim god does indeed exist are the ones that bear the burden of proof and have to provide to the world their findings and evidence.

It is up to us, the skeptic, to review this evidence and then report our own findings.
Source(s):

It's called R-E-A-D-I-N-G! That means more than just 1 book people.

Answer 1

Yeah, I've heard this claim before.
You claim that "the burden of proof is upon the person who makes a "positive statement"...
You made a "positive statement"...you stated, quite positively, that "God is absent".
I am skeptical, since I see evidence of His presence everywhere I look. Therefore, I would like to see your proof of the statement you made.

The problem is that YOU are looking for something physical...while I am speaking of something spiritual.
Science has not even scratched the surface of the physical realm yet...it is certainly not ready to explore a Kingdom which, according to it's King, is "not of this world."
Pilate had sense enough to realize that Jesus was no threat to Ceasar...but today's high school science teachers can't seem to "get it".
Since you remain stubborn in this regard, why not simply "wash your hands" and be done with it?

Answer 2

"Is absence of proof of God proof of the absence of God?" No. I think you are leaning more into the area of agnosticism. (atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive). I am an Agnostic Atheist. I don't believe in the existence of deities, but I don't entirely rule them out, either. I personally, feel that the existence of deities is unlikely (though possible). I also feel that the majority of theistic religions are man-made, and impossible. You mentioned an issue of the burden of proof. It always lays on the person making the fantastic claim. If I were to say there were a flying spaghetti monster, you would ask for proof, and rightly so. There cannot be proof that gods do not exist. What you have to do is start from an unbiased point. The evidence does not necessarily support a divine creator. Theists generally tend to lean that way due to their upbringing and social environment. You should always start with the question and try to find the answer. You should never start with the answer and try to fit the question to it.

Answer 3

"When a person or a party makes claim about something like the existence of god, evolution, gravity or the tooth fairy they are the ones that carry the 'burden of proof'."
Fine. You just made a claim about people who claim something bearing the burden of proof. Therefore, you bear the burden of proof to prove this. Also, you claim to be a skeptic. Then prove you're just as skeptical about skepticism as you seem to be about everything else. Also prove that there is an "absence of God" which is as much of a claim about reality as the "existence of God".

And since God cannot be studied directly, proof would be impossible anyway. The preponderance of the evidence favors belief- I think there are too many things that we more likely acquired them from a higher being that also has them than from a naturalistic universe in which they would otherwise be absent. For example, we can sense no intelligence nor consciousness in matter itself, yet we possess both. While we can't rule out that we always possessed them or that we acquired them from a naturalistic universe that has neither, is it not a more believable scenario that we obtained them from a being that can give both because it has both itself? The same could be argued, perhaps to a lesser extent, for free will and our senses of beauty and morality (although one could argue that both are merely illusory, I would think it more likely that they seem real because they are).

Answer 4

It makes little sense to talk about “proof” of a world view, whether Christian or atheist. In the end, as Gilbert Harman pointed out decades ago, the real question is which offers the “best explanation” of things. And as there is no general agreement on how to decide which of these explanations is the “best”, the argument seems certain to run.
Christians will argue that their world view represents a superb way of making sense of things, while accepting that this, like its atheist counterparts, is open to challenge by sceptics.They know that they can’t prove that God is there, any more than an atheist can prove that there is no God. The simple fact is that all of us, whether Christians or atheists, base our lives on at least some fundamental beliefs that we know we cannot prove, but nevertheless believe to be reliable and significant. We all need to examine our beliefs — especially if we are naive enough to think that we don’t have any in the first place.

Answer 5

A hearty amen. To prove a negative is impossible, just as you can't prove there isn't a unicorn in the trunk of my car who is invisible and has no effect on the physical world around it. If I already stipulate that this unicorn is immeasurable as it exists outside of space and time I have removed all ability to prove he isn't there. The same goes for those who fiat the existence of a deity that exists outside space and time and is therefore immeasurable and unobservable.

Anyway, I have to go feed my magic invisible unicorn...

Update: To no1home2day: you have a very loose definition of the word evidence. Allow me to burst your little bubble. One, the stories of Daniel were written long after he had supposedly lived and were right around the time of Alexander.

Further, many other "prophesies" were written after the fact and attributed to earlier "prophets". Others were so vague anyone could have been their "fulfillment." Much that was prophesied about Christ was fulfilled earlier by Horus, the Egyptian God. I don't see anyone bowing to him.

DNA can also be accounted for in verifiable methods that don't require hocus pocus to work. The theory of Evolution as postulated by Darwin and further proven by over a hundred years of research elegantly explains the evolution of species from the simplest to the greatest and not one untestable bit of magic is required.

Intelligent Design is NOT A THEORY but a badly postulated, untestable, attempt at a hypothesis used to justify the ramblings of idiots in the desert trying to explain how things came to be. People like that pseudo-doctor Kent Hovind (the mention of that slimebag's name makes my skin crawl) and others are a disgrace and should NEVER be allowed to call their lies science. They are frauds who take money from stupid sheep to peddle crap that "proves" the existence of these idiot's imaginary friend in the sky.

Answer 6

That's like saying "Disprove that redbirds don't fly at night" You can't. You would have to observe every redbird that ever existed. You can't disprove a negative.

And besides, there really is plenty of evidence for God's existence. Too numerous to even begin to demonstrate in this little space.

You can look at the extreme complexity of DNA, and examine the method by which it duplicates itself as an illustration of Intelligent Design, or you can look at the historical evidence as seen in the Scriptures. (that is to say, archeological digs that have demonstrated that the ancient places in the Bible actually did exist). Or you can look at the prophecies and look at history to see that those prophecies were fulfilled. (Just one of MANY examples to illustrate the point, Daniel describes Alexander the Great!) or the 300 or so prophecies fulfilled in the life of Jesus Christ.

Don't say there is no evidence. You just don't want to examine it too closely, because then you would have to admit that God really DOES exist, and you just don't want to be morally accountable to a higher Authority.

Answer 7

Is the absence of god proof that he doesn't exist?

Not necessarily, but the presence of god is the only evidence that would hold up in a court of our peers charged with deliberating over the inquiry! In a democratic society, irrefutable proof is the only evidence that can be accepted. Otherwise ..... "case dismissed."

Answer 8

But a lack of proof does not constitute proof of the opposite, either.

There is no unifying theory in physics, though it's strongly suspected there is one. Just that no one has been able to put it together yet. Does that mean there can't be one? Of course not.

edit: What, no thoughts from anyone else?

The silence is deafening...

Answer 9

God isn't in your high sounding, intelligent, knowledge filled books...this is where atheist always go wrong. They don't understand they have a spirit. That spirit is what connects you to God...You will never find him by reading books..You can learn of him, by reading the Bible,,,but until you let the Holy Spirit into your life, you are never going to understand the truths of God...

I'm not looking for proof...I have it...now if you want it, you get it the same way I did....you humble yourself before him.

But from there you will seek the LORD your God,. and you will find Him if you search for Him. with all your heart and all your soul. Deuteronomy 4:29 (NASB) ...

Answer 10

Didn't you ask this question already? It's called an appeal to ignorance. Ignorance about something says nothing about it's existence or non existence. When asked if God exists, the logical answer would be "I don't know."