Absence of Evidence is Evidence of Absence

[Castle]

At least for the Christian God, that is:) Why, you ask? We can't conclusively show that God exists, but that doesn't mean that He doesn't exist. It just means that we don't know. That may look good on the surface, but we need to dig a little deeper.

The Christian God is commonly assumed (and will be defined in this thread) as a being with the properties of omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence. So how to these relate to the lack of evidence for non-existence. Consider the main benefit if we all knew that God existed:

We'd all be Christian. Well, pretty close, anyway. Regardless:
No more nasty religious wars, for one thing. A nice sense of world unity. No more evil atheists Also, let's take a look at the Christian doctrine of Hell (and this is the big one), which basically declares that if you don't accept Jesus Christ as savior, you will suffer eternal torment after your death. Obviously, before one can accept Christ as savior, one must believe that He exists. God can help us take that first step. These are the benefits of conclusive evidence of God's existence. I, personally, can see no costs. Given these benefits, it would be logical to assume that God, being both omnibenevolent (and wanting good things for humans) and omnipotent (and capable of providing conclusive evidence of His existence), would give us conclusive proof of His existence. So why, we ask, doesn't He? I've heard two main theistic responses:

1) God has already provided sufficient evidence (The Bible, nature, etc.), now we need to do our part and find Him

Fair enough. It's quite possible that God has done His part; maybe He's even done more than His part. So why can't He go even more above and beyond His part and provide even more evidence for His existence, evidence that would convince every single person on Earth? Isn't it worth a little extra effort (from, remember, a being who's got an infinite amount to exert) to save souls from eternal damnation.

2) God can't force the unbelievers to believe; if the already existing evidence won't sway you, nothing will

This makes no sense to me. Giving more evidence wouldn't interfere with free will, and it makes sense that the more evidence there is for a conclusion, the more people will believe it. This claim is tantamount to saying that the Bible is the best evidence that could possibly exist for Christianity, and I find absurd. We can easily conceptualize stronger evidence for Christianity, why shouldn't it be more convincing? Less evidence than the Bible would certainly be less convincing; by the same token, more evidence than the Bible would be more convincing.The evidence that currently exists isn't conclusive; we can easily imagine evidence that would be (e.x. seeing God, seeing miracles, etc.) So why doesn't God provide it?

Personally, I like option #3: a god so defined is logically self-contradicting, and thus doesn't exist.

[luke virtual kh]

Absence of Evidence is Evidence of Absence

I agree, when there are certain things you would expect to see, but don't, you can make a valid inference.

God does not exist.

is the answer.

[Stewbert]

I have two nearly contradicting views on this. Both in which I consider.

First, there is no evidence of God. There can never exist evidence of the God personality on Earth. All evidence so far can be attributed to culture and society. If God exists and the Bible is completely true, then He obviously has given up trying to prove himself over the last two milleniums. In fact, it would seem that he is disproving himself by making religion look bad (religious wars, pedophile priests, etc), ceasing to produce miracles, and producing the recent destructive weather phenomenon.

However, I started to consider His existance since a friend had raised a question: "If all men were blind, would that mean the world was dark?" A very powerful question that challeged all scientific and logical derivations. If God created us so that there is just no way of finding him, it doesn't necessarily mean He is inexistant. The laws of physics and mathematics could have been made so intelligently that understanding God is on a totally different level of intellect, one that is impossible to reach.

My personal conclusion is that there may be a God but maybe we dont have the "eyes" to see Him. Therefore, an organization or collective writings or even a story passed down through generations could possibly tell you the specifics of God. Maybe it turns out that the Indian Tribes are right? What if the answer was paganism, Shintoism or even LSD the whole time? We'll never know as long as we're alive.

[Technosoul]

From a offical standpoint to being technical if something cannot be detected by any manner of proof-giving then it is absent.

While on the cross Jesus shouted out 'Father, why have you forsaken me". Which is another way of saying "why are you absent?" - meaning - not here.
Not evident.

And so Christians cannot debate the saying indicated via biblical references.

Absence is not disprove the potential for exsistance. It is possible that some life form could exist on a planet so far away that we cannot detect it by any current means of proof finding - it is absent from our limited abilty to see it but it could none the less be in exsistance. But what is out of contact for us is proof that it is out of contact for us, that is called a "self evident truism".

[Castle]

Quote by: Stewbert However, I started to consider His existance since a friend had raised a question: "If all men were blind, would that mean the world was dark?" A very powerful question that challeged all scientific and logical derivations. If God created us so that there is just no way of finding him, it doesn't necessarily mean He is inexistant.

Quote by: Technosoul Absence is not disprove the potential for exsistance.

Yes, guys, thank you, but I do know that ordinarily this argument would be an incorrect argument from ignorance. But in this particular case it's not. Care to read the OP and get back to me?

[Zhavric]

In general, no inferences can be drawn from a lack of evidence. This is often summed up in epigrams such as "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." In some circumstances, though, the absence of evidence can be used as the base for an inference.

For example, we can usually believe that a railroad timetable is complete, which is to say that all departures and arrivals for a given location are listed. In this case, the following argument is valid (and not an appeal to ignorance).

1. There is no arrival listed at this station in the next hour
2. (suppressed premise) Any scheduled arrival would be listed
3. Therefore, there is no scheduled arrival at this station in the next hour

In legal procedures, there is often an official burden of proof established under law. For example, the defendant may be "presumed innocent" unless the prosecution can prove his guilt. In this case, if the prosecutor cannot prove guilt, the defendant is considered to be proven innocent.

This "burden of proof" is often generalized informally in debate and dialogue, where the person presenting a claim -- particularly an unusual or improbable claim -- is usually considered to have the "burden of proof" in proving his claim. If he cannot provide evidence supporting his claim, many rational observers will reject his claim. This is particularly true where his claim contradicts well-established (and well-supported) aspects of reality such as the basic laws of physics. So the following argument is usually considered rational.

1. Person X claims to have invented a perpetual motion machine
2. Person X cannot (or will not) provide evidence that his perpetual motion machine works
3. A working perpetual motion machine would violate the laws of thermodynamics
4. Therefore, Person X is incorrect in his claim.

Thus,

1. Person X claims the christian god exists.
2. Person X cannot (or will not) provide evidence that god exists
3. The christian god would have attributes that are incompatable with our universe.
4. Therefore, Person X is incorrect in his claim.

Cue apologists explaining that a "tri-omni" god can exist in our disaster-filled world...

[Castle]

Quote by: Zhavric In general, no inferences can be drawn from a lack of evidence. This is often summed up in epigrams such as "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Thank you Zhavric, I know that. The special circumstances of the OP make my argument valid regardless, without appealing to your somewhat dubious burden of proof shifting below.

[Jack]

the defendant is considered to be proven innocent.

For the sake of accuracy, no one is proven innocent, they are found to be not guilty. A subtle but significant difference.

[Cephus]

Quote by: Castle We'd all be Christian. Well, pretty close, anyway.

No we wouldn't. Christianity assumes that you follow this deity, not just believe. If God turned out to be real, I still wouldn't follow him because, at least if he's anything like he's portrayed in the Bible, he's a real dick. So yes, while I'd certainly acknowledge his existence if it was proven, I would not follow or worship him.

I suspect a lot of people would be the same as well.

[Castle]

Quote by: Cephus So yes, while I'd certainly acknowledge his existence if it was proven, I would not follow or worship him.

You'd seriously rather suffer eternal torment than worship the god described in the Bible?

[Zhavric]

Apologies. Forgot to provide the link to my source for the indented material in my above post:

Argument from Ignorance - SkepticWiki

[samsara15]

To Castle: I would rather burn in Hell than submit to the Christian God, and Cephus obviously would do the same, although Cephus must speak for himself.

[Castle]

Quote by: samsara15 I would rather burn in Hell than submit to the Christian God, and Cephus obviously would do the same, although Cephus must speak for himself.

I find that somewhat scary. Alright, then: I amend my point to "the vast majority would be Christian". The rest stands solidly enough.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Absence of evidence IS evidence of absence.

People usually wrongly disagree because they automatically think the evidence is claimed to be proof, and it's not. It may be significant evidence to insignificant evidence.

Significant evidence for absence from absence of evidence.. below..

There is no evidence of an elephant in this room. AKA, there are no marks or dents on the walls, there are no foot prints in the dust, ect. The absence of this evidence is evidence that there was no elephant in this room.

The same can often be said for God. Especially when the Bible describes what God is.. and we can entail what should be happening.. but evidence of this is absent.

[Castle]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer Absence of evidence IS evidence of absence.

Argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy. Claims with no evidence either way default to 'unknown'.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Castle Argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy. Claims with no evidence either way default to 'unknown'.

..did you even read my post? Address my post and then we'll talk.

[Castle]

Ah, fine, fair enough. But 'tis not proof.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Castle Ah, fine, fair enough. But 'tis not proof.

Did you see this part?

Quote by: Me People usually wrongly disagree because they automatically think the evidence is claimed to be proof, and it's not. It may be significant evidence to insignificant evidence.

[Cephus]

Quote by: Castle You'd seriously rather suffer eternal torment than worship the god described in the Bible?

Damn straight. That's like asking if you'd rather be shot than gas Jews under Hitler. Anyone who doesn't choose death isn't worth a damn to begin with.

[Castle]

Quote by: Cephus That's like asking if you'd rather be shot than gas Jews under Hitler. Anyone who doesn't choose death isn't worth a damn to begin with.

And the worth of anyone who does is irrelevent, because they're dead. Dying heroically is an idiotic move, and a selfish one. It doesn't help anything but to assuage your own conscience.