No Evidence?

[Aggie]

 

It's often stated that there is no scientific evidence for the existence of God.  I've always accepted this at face value, because it seems self-evident.  However, I got to thinking - has anyone actually done a literature review to see if there's been any serious scientific investigation into the matter?  I haven't the foggiest how one would set up a hypothesis to test for the presence of God (let alone the apparatus), but is it fair to argue (even if it's strictly true) that there's no scientific evidence for something that science hasn't properly attempted to investigate?

_{yes, I am being a cheeky bugger, but I think it's a fair question to ask}

[Swatopluk]

The most common way is an indirect* one. If it is possible to contact the devil or at least demonstrate that he exists, it could be concluded that God must exist too.
His hellish excellency is considered to be more open to direct contact, esp. when it is for business puposes. And there are common procedures claimed to facilitate it.
Btw, because of that I never understood why anyone would sign a pact with the devil since he is the proof of God, who is known to be both resentful and having more punch.

This is not actually meant as a joke. People that try to prove the existance of the supernatural usually go for phenomena that the churches consider demonic (contact with the dead, hauntings, poltergeist etc.).

*pun intended (but you have to look up Shakespeare to get it)

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

The various arguments that counter the creationism-crowd work equally well against the specific-god crowd.

Certainly, the very nebulous concept "god" is so ill-defined, that it is impossible to design a rigorous experiment to test it-- you cannot test what you cannot define. 

That being said, there are any number of ways to "prove" the various holy-text gods cannot exist as described within.  Simply show that the text contradicts itself, with regards to it's depiction of it's god.  Since a being cannot exist within the logical contradiction, the being cannot exist as described by the text.  Thus, the text is wrong-- and the god it purports to prove, is not real or as advertised.

Those are two approaches to the conundrum.

The third, is to examine the claims for the god in question, and test them by examining history.

For example:  for some versions of god, god is described as very jealous, vengeful, quick-to-anger, has a pretty nasty temper, apt to fits of violent, murderous rages, etc. For example, the classical old testament god can be described in this way, if you are literal-minded.

So, does such a god-being exist?  Possibly, but not likely.  Why?  Simple-- because humanity is still here on earth.  Looking back at history, there are any number of times when collective humans have far exceeded what the o.t. bible says really "p!sses god off".   What I mean is, again, looking to the o.t. for examples of human behaviors that set the o.t. god off on a murderous rampage, we see that it did not take much at all.  And since then, collective humanity has far exceeded those biblical examples.

So, if the o.t. god is real, and true to the o.t descriptions?  The such a being would have wiped out humanity long before now.  So our very existence is proof that such a being is either not as described, or does not exist (with 'not exist' being more likely-- occam's razor).

In either case, it is clear that the o.t descriptions were wrong, and the being it describes either does not exist at all, or if exists, is not as claimed.

There is one more logical exercise to show that the god as claimed by various holy books, does not exist as advertised.

Postulate the following is true:

## a loving, caring, interfering (in human affairs) god exists
## that there are dire consequences, if a person fails to believe/behave according to exacting rules with regards to this being

Consequences?   They are legion, but the most damning one is this:  the very existence of competing [and contradictory] holy books proves that the both of the above can not be true in the same Universe.

Why?  If the consequences are indeed dire, and the being is truly caring, then such a being would ensure that only one holy book would exist, and make sure all the others are destroyed.

Just as a loving, caring parent will remove or lock-away poison from a child, a truly caring being would be sure that only the correct rules exists; this is not about free will, this is about caring about the actual outcome.

That competing holy books do, in fact, exist, proves one or more has to be true:

## the being does not actually interfere (in which case, is not caring/loving)
## the being does not care if people read the wrong book, but punishes anyhow (not caring/loving)
## the being is unable to prevent competing holy books from existing (not really a god, then but a demigod at best)
## the being deliberately permits competing holy books to exist (neither loving nor caring, but evil instead)
## the consequences of believing in the wrong holy book is not actually dire-- and may not play any role at all
## belief is not as important as behavior, and so long as you behave well (or as best you can), you get heaven/reward
## there are no real consequences of any sort, in the afterlife, with regards to belief and/or behavior
## there is no afterlife
## the being does not exist at all (simplest of all possible outcomes, therefore the most likely)

(the list is likely incomplete, but any one of these refutes the holy-book god-claim)
...............

Yes, I've given it some thought in the past 5 years...

Edit: I forgot to list second postulate's logical inconsistencies.  Sorry about that. 

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Certainly, the very nebulous concept "god" is so ill-defined, that it is impossible to design a rigorous experiment to test it-- you cannot test what you cannot define. 

That is the first point, a concrete definition of what god is/means.

If we define it as the abrahamic religions do (ie: the five, omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, eternity) then logic takes care of the proof (a being as such cannot exist in our universe as we understand it).

Once you remove the "omnis" a number of beings are actually possible but proving their existence is difficult because of their apparent lack of interference in our affairs (they may be interfering but in ways that cannot be proved, ie: 'signs', dreams, synchronicity, etc).

A last point, I do not equate neither paranormal activity (ghosts, spirits, etc) nor the existence of an afterlife as proof of any god, but only of an afterlife of which we cannot infer much.

[Swatopluk]

But any proven* paranormal phenomena would be real gamechangers
The Old Testament god was his own devil for most of the time and even after that the devil was part of the divine court (see Hiob).
The idea of an independent evil was foreign to the old Hebrew people. Jahweh could not have a counterpart even a minor one. For this era the omnibenevolence would not be part of the system. Also the OT god is shown as mainly dealing with the Hebrew people and their neighbours, i.e. th chosen ones and those that interfere with them. HIs behaviour with those may differ form the big picture (assumed there is one).
Interestingly the OT somehwere states that the dead have nothing to do anmore with Jahweh, who is the god of the living. The afterlife seems to consist of a huge scarcely lit empty space where people mainly sleep through their eternal boredom. That's even a step down form the Babylonian hereafter where there was at least catering (rather mediocre though it might be).

*real, not faked or misinterpreted

[Lindorm]

Isn't asking for scientific proof of an article of faith something of a epistemological derailment? Faith does not necessarily have anything to do with repeatable experimental validation of a hypothesis.

[Griffin NoName]

and how about the theory that all currently known G-ds, Greek, Roman, Hinndu, Abrahamic, etc etc, are all decoys and the real G-d is so effacing as to intend never to be known/recogniized but just quietly going about His business. Then the hhypothesis would be can on ever know the unknowable? If that were proved, we might begin to get somewhere.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Isn't asking for scientific proof of an article of faith something of a epistemological derailment? Faith does not necessarily have anything to do with repeatable experimental validation of a hypothesis.

Agreed:  if you have evidence, you do not need faith any longer.

I do not understand the idea that having faith is a worthy thing all by itself-- I used to think it was, because I never gave it a moment's thought, and I was always told things like "faith is magical" and "faith is worthy" and "if you have faith, you have everything".

Nowadays, I do not agree:  if it were true that "if you have faith, you have everything" or "faith is enough" then the old adage of "if wishes were horses, all beggars would ride" would be true as well.

In other words, if faith were, in fact, enough?  Who would need to work for a living? 

As for your hypothesis, Griffin?

That's fine.  But would there be a point of paying attention to such a deity at all?  Let alone, bowing and worshiping it?  What would be the point, in that instance?

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

and how about the theory that all currently known G-ds, Greek, Roman, Hinndu, Abrahamic, etc etc, are all decoys and the real G-d is so effacing as to intend never to be known/recogniized but just quietly going about His business. Then the hhypothesis would be can on ever know the unknowable? If that were proved, we might begin to get somewhere.

Talking about the combinations of the tetragrammaton?

[Aggie]

I do not understand the idea that having faith is a worthy thing all by itself-- I used to think it was, because I never gave it a moment's thought, and I was always told things like "faith is magical" and "faith is worthy" and "if you have faith, you have everything".

As mentioned elsewhere, I have just very recently began to understand the value of faith, and IMHO/E it's not a stand-alone thing or indeed a goal in itself.  It's an act of spiritual discipline and humility that is partially a means to an end but partially eternal patience with the prospect that that end may be unreachable.  It's somewhere between meditation and an act of asceticism. Perhaps I have a bit of a strange perspective on it, given that I'm still (despite all this God talk) firmly agnostic from a rational point of view, but to me it's the act of keeping fixated on and striving towards God without evidence thereof or belief therein. I'm not sure that faith without belief is the normal circumstance.

Wrong thread.
--------------------

Perhaps I didn't do a very good job in the OP of describing what I'm getting at.  I'm not describing logical or philosophical proofs or disproofs of God, or any sort of theologia...  I mean proper, scientific theology, as in trying to study God directly rather than talking about it.

What I'm really getting at here is:  Does the statement that there is no empirical evidence for the existence of God reflect the fact that there is negative evidence for God or that there is a lack of scientific investigation of God?  I strongly suspect it is the latter, which IMHO make it a bit of a weak argument. 

Not the sort of thing you typically get research grants for, mind you. 


I am not contending that it is possible to detect God directly, even if something meeting any description of God 'exists'.  However, I do think there are ways to start going about investigating it.  For those interested in a bit of useless speculation, I'll ramble on a bit below:

Within biology, one could start along the lines of neurotheology; there has been some work done on the effects of spiritual practice (meditative states, etc.) on brain function.  Starting with human subjects and identifying brain-activity patterns common to differing forms of spiritual practice, one could then look at apes and other closely related species to see if analogous activity patters occur, and if so, under what circumstances they occur (this approach could risk discovering that God is analogous to a banana).  If something common to non-human primates was observed, one could start looking at other species.  Personally, I'd look at dogs and cats first, because dogs have got worship down quite well, and cats think that they are God.

Whether or not these sorts of observations are made in animals, there is still much work to be done on looking for the mechanisms by which spiritual practice or experiences influence brain activity.  I haven't looked much at the existing literature, but doubt it's gone much beyond taking some brain scans of Tibetan monks and saying "oh, look at that, isn't it lovely?" at this point.  Ultimately, if one wanted to generate some rather bombastic hypotheses, one would want to attempt to identify a 'receptor' structure in the brain.  I'm not suggesting that we literally have a god-receptor in our brains, but the subjective perceptions (including frighteningly real auditory hallucinations) of 'gods' or 'devils' seen in some forms of schizophrenia suggest that there may be pathways in the brain that can lead to the impression of communication with God when they malfunction.  Perhaps we've got a vestigial structure somewhere in there, that used to be for god-communion*?

_{*maybe they are still active, but God's gone away or is harder to get to than it used to be (hmm... kind of like Griffin mentions above, but maybe we're in a low point on a cyclic occurrence of avatar-activity?).}

IF _{(big if  )} some kind of a receptor-structure was identified, and science was able to sort out some kind of a mechanism by which it functions, that would open up the prospects for building of an artificial God-detector (and by the time this is possible, the ability for the Benevolent Atheist World Governance Association to burn it out to the brains of those damned theist rebels  ).  I suppose that would be the ultimate 'scientific evidence' for God - a working theometer that you could use to measure theon levels in a given location.  It'd sure be interesting to know if one got higher readings in holy sites, or if there was a fairly even background-radiation glow of God.  I am getting a bit silly at this point - I did warn you this was useless speculation. The nice thing about a theometer is that if you are an atheist it's very easy to build a fully-functioning one.   

[Griffin NoName]

As for your hypothesis, Griffin?

That's fine.  But would there be a point of paying attention to such a deity at all?  Let alone, bowing and worshiping it?  What would be the point, in that instance?

I think there is nothing to be said about paying attention, you can if you want to, or not. And likewise, there may be a point, or not, it's not a problem.

and how about the theory that all currently known G-ds, Greek, Roman, Hinndu, Abrahamic, etc etc, are all decoys and the real G-d is so effacing as to intend never to be known/recogniized but just quietly going about His business. Then the hhypothesis would be can on ever know the unknowable? If that were proved, we might begin to get somewhere.

Talking about the combinations of the tetragrammaton?

well, I wasn't aware I was or wasn't as I had to look up the meaning of the word.

What I'm really getting at here is:  Does the statement that there is no empirical evidence for the existence of God reflect the fact that there is negative evidence for God or that there is a lack of scientific investigation of God?  I strongly suspect it is the latter, which IMHO make it a bit of a weak argument. 

Yes, we have been drifting off topic. First we have to define scientific what of the evidence that the sick get up and walk, that angels reveal themselves etc the faithful see G-d everywhere

[Swatopluk]

Concerning God detector and holy sites: Statistics was applied to 'miracle healings' occurring at places like Lourdes etc. The result was that the probability for an acknowledged miracle in Lourdes was significantly lower than elsewhere. Maybe the holiness of the place has been used up over time or the original manifestations of Mary sucked the place dry. So, if you need a mircale, avoid holy sites.
But the most likely (but far less funny) reason is that the church applies very harsh standards for 'miracles' in those places in order to avoid being fooled by and ridiculed for fakes.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Not the sort of thing you typically get research grants for, mind you. 

It depends, have you heard about the Higgs boson?
---
My conjecture regarding many supernatural phenomena is that it would be either related to parallel universes or dimensional in nature, in consequence it would be required to prove that there are indeed other universes/dimensions and then check if our brains are capable of perceiving them in any way or form. Conversely, you wouldn't know/understand what an antenna is if you don't know about electromagnetic waves, on the same token we wouldn't know if there are structures in the brain that allow said perception if we don't know anything about the nature of what they are supposed to perceive.

[Aggie]

Sometimes you can start with the receptor - it's easy to figure out what an eye does, without knowing what a photon is.  But I agree that much of the challenge in this sort of investigation is knowing what to start looking for in the first place.

Personally, I don't find miracles or other purported interventions by God to have much value as a subject for study.  If there's anything divine going on there (which I remain highly sceptical of), it's IMHO more likely to be mediated through the brain than a direct hand-of-God healing.  The brain can have powerful effects on the body, so if that's already set up as an interface, why bother with a direct miracle?  This would likely be indistinguishable from a really powerful placebo effect.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Sometimes you can start with the receptor - it's easy to figure out what an eye does, without knowing what a photon is. 

Whereas it is true you do not need to understand photons?  You do need to recognize that light exists, i.e. the "macroscopic" properties of a collection of photons.

We have yet to see any evidence of the "macroscopic" properties of [a] god or gods.  Absence of evidence is evidence of absence; pay no attention to that invisible elephant over there in the corner, and please try not to step in the invisible elephant dung-- the invisible and imaginary stink is invisibly overwhelming at times..... 

To understand this hypothetical god-detector or god-receptor, you must understand at a minimum some "macroscopic"-god properties or emergent god-properties.  That is?  Just as in the analogy of trying to understand the eye, you have to recognize that the eye is perceiving the macro-property of photons, light.

And whereas it is true you do not need to understand all the minute details of light itself, you do need to recognize and show that light exists, and demonstrate light's effects on non-eye structures and mechanisms, i.e. green leaves (for example) or a painted canvas (no light, canvas' colors cannot be determined, etc).

To date, we as far as I know, cannot detect any 'macroscopic' god properties of any kind.

In other words, the aforementioned meditative effects may well be an emergent property of other things, such as self-awareness, or a simple by-product of a complex brain, and not indicative of anything at all outside such brain-body systems.

To eliminate this possibility, you would have to demonstrate these hypothetical 'macroscopic' god 'properties' independent of the brain itself, just as you can demonstrate light's properties independent of the eye, even without understanding what light is, or how it's basic function works.

And that is the crux of the whole god-problem:  there appears to be no such properties independent of human brain activity.

As far as anyone knows, that is.