Proof #11: Notice There is No Scientific Evidence

December 15, 2007 at 8:36 am 20 comments

There is no scientific evidence indicating that God exists. We all know that. For example:

  • God has never left any physical evidence of his existence on earth.
  • None of Jesus’ “miracles” left any physical evidence either.
  • God has never spoken to modern man, for example by taking over all the television stations and broadcasting a rational message to everyone.
  • The resurrected Jesus has never appeared to anyone.
  • The Bible we have is provably incorrect and is obviously the work of primitive men rather than God.
  • When we analyze prayer with statistics, we find no evidence that God is “answering prayers.”
  • Huge, amazing atrocities like the Holocaust and AIDS occur without any response from God.
  • And so on…

Let’s agree that there is no empirical evidence showing that God exists.

No, we’re not going to agree that there is no empirical evidence supporting God. Let’s first take a look at each of Marshall Brain’s bullet points and see if each one stands or falls.

God has never left any physical evidence of his existence on earth. Of course not. God is immaterial, and exists outside of creation. This is simple logic. When I build something, I do not become a part of it, I remain outside of it. It is possible to know that God exists by understanding that creation itself was created by Him, and that by looking first at creation one must know that a Creator exists (Rom 1:20).

Notice that Romans 1:20 talks about God’s invisible attributes.

None of Jesus’ “miracles” left any physical evidence either. Would we expect them to? They happened 2,000 years ago, and mostly involved healing blind people or restoring motility of lame people’s limbs. Why would we then expect evidence to remain? Soft tissue degrades.

God has never spoken to modern man. God has left the Bible. Revelation is closed, now it is time to act on what we already have.

The resurrected Jesus has never appeared to anyone. This is patently false. Jesus appeared to His disciples, and later to Paul. This is all recorded in the Bible.

The Bible we have is provably incorrect. And yet, I haven’t seen a single source successfully do that.

When we analyze prayer with statistics, we find no evidence that God is “answering prayers.” I’ve already answered that here.

Huge, amazing atrocities occur without any response from God. Again, man trying to put responsibility back on God. We created most of the aforementioned atrocities, so why should we expect God to bail us out? God provides for our needs rather than our wants.

As for diseases like AIDS, this could be prevented by appropriate safe sex methods or abstinence. The fact that it still spreads is evidence that we humans are not doing enough to prevent the spread. Namely, practicing a little bit of self-control.

None of these points are specific arguments against God; they’re more like a wish list of stuff that the average atheist would like to see God do in order to sway him to believe in God.

The sidebar below this proof talks about the “God must remain hidden” rationalization, which I’ve already briefly touched on in my Romans 1:20 cite. God is talked about as “invisible” in this verse, and again in Colossians 1:15 and 1 Timothy 1:17. That God is invisible is a clear teaching of Scripture, and thus, it is not a rationalization.

Brain also makes three additional points, all derived from his insistence that there is no empirical evidence for God. Now, since I’ve shown that his examples of “no evidence” are fallacious, I need not address his conclusions, since they are based on faulty premises and therefore incorrect by definition. However, I will do so anyway, because there a few additional problems to address:

    1. If we had scientific proof of God’s existence, we would talk about the “science of God” rather than “faith in God”.
    2. If we had scientific proof of God’s existence, the study of God would be a scientific endeavor rather than a theological one.
    3. If we had scientific proof of God’s existence, all religious people would be aligning on the God that had been scientifically proven to exist. Instead there are thousands of gods and religions.

1.  We are basing this on the modern definition of faith.  For the ANE, faith was actually a matter of loyalty based upon past performance.  The Greek word for faith was pistis, which was actually meant “forensic proof.”

2.  Not true by the definition of science.  God is outside of creation, as I pointed out above.  Science concerns itself with what is knowable by observation and testing.  God, who is invisible, is not observable and He has already made it clear we are not to test Him (Deut 6:16).  So, by its own nature, science would not concern itself with God.

3.  Christianity is the only religion that is based on actual, historical events.  These are knowable by historic research, the eyewitness testimonies found in the gospels, and by witnessing the real changes in people’s lives after they commit themselves to Jesus.  Other religions cannot make these claims.  Yet no one is beating a path to join the Christian religion.  Put another way: when I was in sales, the beginning of each of my sales pitches, no matter how good I made the product sound, was met with a curt “I’m not interested.” Whatever you have, no matter how good, will never interest by the general public.  Therefore, this point is moot.

Advertisements

Entry filed under: Science.

Proof #10: Watch the Offering Plate Proof #12: See the Magic

20 Comments

  • 1. Samuel Skinner  |  February 1, 2008 at 7:14 am

    This actually hurt me. God works through people.. except the bad stuff is our fault. God answers prayers… except when he doesn’t. The bible is the relevation… because it says so.

    Islam, Raelianism and Mormonism are both historical religions. Come to think of it Mohhamed promise to the Arabs that he would give them “whatever you can lay your hands on” turned out to be accurate.

    Redefining words won’t help you. In the case of the Greek word the same word was used to describe how people choose philosophies. They choose them on faith aka how well dressed their proponents were, how articulate they were, what the philosophy could do for them. See The Christians as the Romans Saw Them (heretics basically).

    Although God is outside of creation, creation, by definition is inside of creation. We should expect to see his handiwork. We don’t. Instead we see the stress lines that indicate poor craftmanship (literally; see Mercury).

  • 2. Mark  |  June 13, 2008 at 12:16 am

    No scientific evidence for God? http://www.godandscience.org

  • 3. Luke  |  June 13, 2008 at 9:40 am

    God has never left any physical evidence of his existence on earth. Of course not. God is immaterial, and exists outside of creation. This is simple logic. When I build something, I do not become a part of it, I remain outside of it.
    So now God is immaterial.. He has no material body or form. Care to prove that? Or did you just rationalize that? How are we “made in his image” if he has no image. You just contradicted the Bible. So does being immaterial actually mean that he’s made out of nothing? rofl. Give me a break. How does this “immaterialness” get it’s intelligence and it’s power to magically make material stuff appear from nothing at will? I’ll tell you what else is immaterial; The things people make up with their imaginations.

    It is possible to know that God exists by understanding that creation itself was created by Him, and that by looking first at creation one must know that a Creator exists
    Well here we go back to the ultimate regression of what created the creator. You can’t say that by looking at creation there is a creator without saying that by looking at a creator we must know that there was a creation of the creator. And it surely doesn’t make sense to say God has always existed in an infinitely long past. But anyway, I’ll humor this idea of the creation of God for a moment.
    In this example, let’s say that there was some kind of, shall we say, “unknown forces,” that allowed for the spontaneous creation of intelligent consciousness. These “Unknown forces” were not a form of intelligence in itself, but was just always there in the nothingness that is infinitely empty space. At one point, something happened, and the “unknown forces” within the nothingness that is infinitely empty space sparked intelligent consciousness that somehow became aware of itself and was capable of thought. What next? What does it want to do, and what are the goals it sets for itself? What is the meaning of it’s “life?” Where would it’s so-called powers to create come from?
    Ask yourself what you would do if you were this “God” that spontaneously came into existence. Would you create a universe with laws of physics and make a planet and put other conscious beings on it for a short “heaven or hell test” on said planet? Think about what you would do if you were God before you created heaven, the universe, or earth. You can do anything you want with your power. Would you really create earth the way it was or is now, or would you do something else for the means of “spiritual evolution or growth” of these conscious beings you created? What would you do differently as a God that you might consider a “better job” than the God as portrayed in the Bible did? I can think of TON of things I’d do better than the God of the Bible did.

    Now let me humor the scientists perspective of the Universe with the same “unknown forces” premise as the story above. But in this story, something happened with these non-intelligent “unknown forces” that always existed in infinitely empty space that has it’s own natural laws of physics, and that spontaneously created matter from a big-bang in the form of hydrogen. Basically, the universe evolved, stars evolved, heavier elements evolved through fusion within the stars, galaxies evolved, solar systems evolved, planets evolved, abiogenesis occurred on one or more planets, man eventually evolved, language evolved, myths and legends evolved, writing evolved, and poof, the Bible and other religious writings evolved, and here we are.

    Which of these two stories do you find more likely? I’ll have to go with the Big-bang. And if the “God” story is true, then maybe there’s something beyond life in these bodies on earth that was either lost through history, or just clouded over heavily by organized religion. I’ll buy the “God story” if none of the ridiculous religions on earth are true and there is indeed something greater than ourselves out there not written about in any books on earth.

  • 4. Mark  |  June 13, 2008 at 11:02 pm

    Luke, made in His image means we have free will and intelligence. Anyway, it seems this boils down to a “duh who made God?” whine.
    Everything that BEGINS to exist needs a cause.
    God did not begin to exist.
    Therefore, God does need need a cause.

  • 5. Luke  |  June 14, 2008 at 4:14 am

    Luke, made in His image means we have free will and intelligence.
    –Heh, this is the second time I’ve heard a ridiculous ad-hoc interpretation of that verse. What part of “he created man in his image” could possibly mean anything BUT the way we look? Being alive in the first place means we have free will and intelligence, so there’s no need to add any more redundant explanation. Why doesn’t the bible say “all things were created in his image” if it means everything has free will and intellect. You have to understand the mind of the author who wrote the creation story. God wasn’t sitting there talking to the author who wrote the creation story. So naturally, the creation story is the imagination of the author. So when he was trying to explain why God made humans to look the way we do, the only reason he could imagine is that we are God’s physical “image;” God’s “reflection of his image” in a mirror, if you will. There’s nothing else implied there at all by the author. I can pick the creation story apart and point out numerous scientific inaccuracies and prove to you that it is a primitive piece of work of fiction created by a man with no understanding of nature.
    If the ignorance of nature gave birth to the gods, then knowledge of nature is calculated to destroy them. Gods are fragile things; They may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense. And when you understand why you dismiss all other Gods, you’ll understand why people dismiss yours.

    Anyway, it seems this boils down to a “duh who made God?” whine.
    Everything that BEGINS to exist needs a cause.
    God did not begin to exist.
    Therefore, God does need need a cause.

    —And here we have the “duh God always existed” whine. Despite your comment making no sense in the way it’s written, I know what you intended it to mean. (If God did not begin to exist, then he doesn’t exist, lol.) You’re trying to say EVERYTHING needs a cause to exist except God because he somehow just always existed so that he avoids the “doesn’t need a cause” rule. That’s the best anyone can come up with, and is a seriously flawed logical fallacy. No one can even prove God exists in the first place, let alone that he ALWAYS existed. What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. If you can say a God always existed, then I can say that the conditions to cause big-bangs always existed. No “intelligent, all-powerful God” needed for it. It’s far more likely that if a God does exist, then he had a beginning and a cause. It’s just a shame that there’s no proof of him existing in the first place.

    –I’m reminded of a quote I once read:
    “Faith is the determination to remain ignorant in the face of all evidence that you are ignorant.”

  • 6. Mark  |  June 16, 2008 at 3:02 pm

    1. No, this is not ad-hoc, that is official teaching.

    2. Wrong.

    Please refute the Kalam cosmological argument:
    1 Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
    2: The universe began to exist.
    3: Therefore, the universe must have a cause.

    Whatever the cause is we call it God.

    Finally refute the Quinquae viae:
    1. The argument of the unmoved mover (ex motu).
    * Some things are moved.
    * Everything that is moved is moved by a mover.
    * An infinite regress of movers is impossible.
    * Therefore, there is an unmoved mover from whom all motion proceeds.
    * This mover is who we call God.
    2. The argument of the first cause (ex causa).
    * Some things are caused.
    * Everything that is caused is caused by something else.
    * An infinite regress of causation is impossible.
    * Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of all caused things.
    * This causer is who we call God.
    3. The argument of contingency (ex contingentia).
    * Many things in the universe may either exist or not exist. Such things are called contingent beings.
    * It is impossible for everything in the universe to be contingent, as something can’t come of nothing, and if traced back eventually there must have been one thing from which all others have occurred.
    * Therefore, there must be a necessary being whose existence is not contingent on any other being(s).
    * This being is who we call God.
    4. The argument of degree (ex gradu).
    * Various perfections may be found in varying degrees throughout the universe.
    * These degrees of perfections assume the existence of the perfections themselves.
    * The pinnacle of perfection, from which lesser degrees of perfection derive, is what we call God.
    5. The argument of “design” (ex fine).
    * All natural bodies in the world act for ends.
    * These objects are in themselves unintelligent.
    * To act for ends is characteristic of intelligence.
    * Therefore, there exists an intelligent being which guides all natural bodies to their ends.
    * This being is who we call God.

  • 7. Luke  |  June 16, 2008 at 10:36 pm

    No, this is not ad-hoc, that is official teaching.
    –Who determines what is official? Did God appoint someone as an “official” interpreter? Whoever these “officials” are, they’re using ad-hoc reasoning as well for the purpose of disassociating that verse with the way we look for whatever their reason is. I bet if you did a survey, a vast majority would take “in his image” as the way we look. And can you tell me why there’s this verse that says:
    Gen 1:26 “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness”
    –First off, why is God saying US and OUR? Secondly, it mentions image, after “our” likeness. That’s saying we were made as “they” look, after “their” likeness. It’s all about looks, and is not some metaphor for anything else. Take a time machine and go back and ask the author what he meant, and I can guarantee he’ll tell you looks. By the way, there are quite a few verses Where God is talking plural as in the verse above. A few are in Genesis, and I could probably find a few more if I read more:
    3:22
    6:2-4
    11:6-7

    3: Therefore, the universe must have a cause.
    –But you rationalize “God always existed” so he miraculously avoids the need for a cause. So why even use the Kalam Cosmological Argument for God as the causer who needs no cause? It is not out of the question to assume that if a God does exist, then he had a beginning, and is the far more likely scenario than “he always existed.”

    * 1An infinite regress of causation is impossible.
    * 2Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of all caused things.
    * 3This causer is who we call God.

    –1=True. 2=True 3=The whatever we don’t understand, we call “God” syndrome.
    1:Why is the universe itself not a valid stopping point of regression?
    2:Hydrogen, the matter that spewed forth in the big bang, which is the basic building block from which all the stars and elements originate in the universe, can have a natural cause that only seems supernatural because scientists do not yet understand it’s cause. Science does not comment on the supernatural because scientists aren’t so naive as to jump to the conclusion that “God did it.” People really should learn about cosmic evolution and astronomy.
    3:Why does this uncaused cause have to be a supernatural “intelligent being with magic powers” that always existed? Why can it not be unintelligent forces?

    * It is impossible for everything in the universe to be contingent, as something can’t come of nothing, and if traced back eventually there must have been one thing from which all others have occurred.
    –True, but again, it doesn’t even have to be an “intelligent supernatural being with magic powers.”

    *Various perfections may be found in varying degrees throughout the universe.
    –And all of this is determined by Laws of physics, gravity, and thermodynamics. The universe is far from perfect. It is a very violent and a chaotically destructive place. If any of it were different, then it would be different. Nothing more, nothing less.

    Basically all this stuff listed boils everything down to “God did it,” which is what got humanity into the religious mess it’s in to begin with.

  • 8. Luke  |  June 20, 2008 at 1:16 am

    Genesis 5:3
    And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:

    –Now what do you think that means? Sounds like it means Seth looks like his daddy.

    And don’t even get me started on people having children over 100 years old and living lives up to 700-900 years.

  • 9. Corné Botha  |  July 1, 2008 at 12:49 pm

    Guys read the bible . read romans . God is invisible. I totally agree on this site. . Who need prove in anyway. i thought its all about faith.

  • 10. Luke  |  July 7, 2008 at 2:29 pm

    Corné Botha Says:
    Guys read the bible . read romans . God is invisible. I totally agree on this site. . Who need prove in anyway. i thought its all about faith.

    –Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. “Faith” is just another way to sucker you in to blindly following and believing in something with no need for evidence or proof. Every religion has “faith” in their God. Does that make all other Gods true? Absolutely not.

  • 11. Mark  |  July 7, 2008 at 7:51 pm

    You got faith in that statement, Luke?

  • 12. Luke  |  July 9, 2008 at 1:19 pm

    Mark Says:
    You got faith in that statement, Luke?
    –Sometimes. Is that a satisfactory answer for ya? lol.
    What are you getting at?

  • 13. Mark  |  July 10, 2008 at 4:16 pm

    I’m getting at that you don’t know what faith means.

  • 14. Anti-Devil  |  July 14, 2008 at 8:14 pm

    Good point on elaborating faith,i imagine if everyone in this world had no faith in u luke..how would u feel? think twice about having faith…faith is not proving true or false..lets just put all these aside..faith is whether u believe and trust.=D ar thats important..Get it?

  • 15. luke  |  July 14, 2008 at 9:13 pm

    i imagine if everyone in this world had no faith in u luke..how would u feel?
    –I wouldn’t care at all. Why would I?

    faith is not proving true or false
    –Then I don’t care about hearing it. I know that faith is the crutch the Bible uses to get people to believe and trust, but the problem is that it’s not a good reason to believe at all. Period.

  • 16. smjkim  |  July 22, 2008 at 11:00 pm

    “Faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see” Hebrews 11:1.

    It’s not a good reason at all if we must justify our reason for believing in it beforehand. I have to agree with Luke on this one, except that this is about trying to understand an infinite God with our finite knowledge. If we can in any way grasp God and fully “understand” Him, then He’s a no God at all.

    Paul Tillich, or something close to it, he’s the fellow that has written about faith being the ultimate concern. There is always that element of doubt in faith which will be open to questions like “Does He really exist?” Tillich also points out that the believer’s spiritual or “mental” benefits that come with having a relationship with an infinite God (where as a finite God like money or other things that can perish will disappoint men at the end) will not dissatisfy the believer if the God being served is indeed an infinite being.

    If it isn’t for faith, we can’t begin to understand God. But one can easily flip this statement around and say that faith is the requirement in order for us to delusionally create God in our minds, and justify our beliefs.

    Another thing; my family just experienced something last Sunday that’s not scientifically explanable, but we know it was from God. Am I looking too deep into the “coincidence” and attributing it to an imaginary God? I may be. I tried and tried to interpret in any other way, but I can’t. God wanted my family to be at that place at that certain time.
    *My point: I experienced God, but that same experience may or may not be interpreted the same way for others. But it’s the way I experienced it and the way I interpret my experience that matters. Scientific evidence for God isn’t necessary for me, but obviously it is a necessity for others… just to give you heads-up, it’s a lot more difficult that way unless you are willing to take the leap of faith first, and I know you know that. But keep trying folks.

  • 17. Luke  |  July 27, 2008 at 6:14 am

    I have to agree with Luke on this one, except that this is about trying to understand an infinite God with our finite knowledge. If we can in any way grasp God and fully “understand” Him, then He’s a no God at all.
    –Understanding a God does not take “knowledge.” It takes imagination, and our imagination is infinite. We can imagine anything that there is to imagine.

    Another thing; my family just experienced something last Sunday that’s not scientifically explanable, but we know it was from God.
    –Well then, let’s hear what happened, and more importantly, WHY it’s not scientifically explainable.

    I tried and tried to interpret in any other way, but I can’t.
    –Well, no offense, but perhaps it was your finite knowledge that didn’t allow you to understand what happened. If you share what happened to a wide variety of people, the odds that they can explain whatever happened naturally get better and better. As I’ve said in proof#4; “I can’t imagine why if a God is true, that any and all of everyone’s personal experiences are so vague, yet at the same time so miraculous to just the person who experienced them, but cannot somehow be used to help explain or prove to other people why the God they believe in actually truly exists.”

    God wanted my family to be at that place at that certain time.
    –You have to be careful with statements like this. There are a few irresolvable contradictions here. First off, did God MAKE you go to that certain place by infringing upon your free will? Second, if God doesn’t know the future or didn’t violate your free will, then what was the guarantee that you would even be in that place at that time? Third, if you weren’t there, would whatever happened at that place at that particular time NOT have occurred due to your absence?

  • 18. Anti-Devil  |  July 28, 2008 at 6:45 pm

    i have only 1 sentence to explain what are u trying to get at while beating around the bush under the bush and over the bush,God is infinite and he has infinite power..he can even make u a happy christian and live in ur dreams,but god gave u a choice..but no matter wat happens..even if hearign this u wanna take a gun and shot urself..god knows it all..?does this explain? u kinda sound like god is just a immortal..U are so wrong=/

  • 19. Anti-Devil  |  July 28, 2008 at 6:45 pm

    God knows everything,how many hairs u have,what colour u like..and ur future..and maybe hearign this u take a gun and shoot urself..god knows it all..

  • 20. sandrar  |  September 10, 2009 at 2:40 pm

    Hi! I was surfing and found your blog post… nice! I love your blog. 🙂 Cheers! Sandra. R.


What's New

Browse by Proof

Click on any of the links below to see the proof of the same number from GodIsImaginary.com. If the link leads you back to this page, it means that that proof hasn't been tackled yet on this page. Please check back often, as I will be updating this site as often as I can!

Copyright

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons United States License.

%d bloggers like this: