"Proof" #11 - Notice that there is no scientific evidence[]
~~~~Notice that there is no scientific evidence~~~~
I have long given up attempting to accept these as formal arguments. They are more like some guy who got drunk one night and is now ranting about how there is no God. I can hear slur speech when I read this. It’s so devastatingly poor reasoning.
However, he has come to one topic which happens to intersect the two things that I know the most about in this life: the Bible and Science. So I am looking forward to showing why his argument fails miserably. There will be some crossover with the other thread, once I get back to it. Just fair warning.
~~~~There is no scientific evidence indicating that God exists. We all know that. For example:~~~~
Actually, not only is there quite a bit of evidence, the amount is growing so significantly that scientists, especially Physicists are rejecting atheism and turning to some form of Christianity.
MB then uses another version of the no true Scotsman fallacy saying ‘we all know that there is no scientific evidence for God’. Let’s examine each example individually.
~~~~~God has never left any physical evidence of his existence on earth.~~~~
Nothing except the entire universe itself, the Bible, and all the evidence that points to Jesus being His Son and resurrected.
~~~~ None of Jesus' "miracles" left any physical evidence either. (see this page)~~~~
What does this even mean? What kind of evidence would a miracle leave? If you raise someone from the dead, they are alive again as if they had not died. If a person was blind and they were healed, it’s as if they were never healed. Aside from both the record of the Bible and the historical record of enemies and neutral parties, there would not be record of any of Jesus specific miracles.
However, there is quite a bit of geological evidence for a global Flood. That’s not the point he is making though, so I’ll leave that for later.
~~~~God has never spoken to modern man, for example by taking over all the television stations and broadcasting a rational message to everyone.~~~~
Except through the Bible, which is how He said He would speak to us after it was fully revealed and written down. This doesn’t prove His non-existence, just MB’s ignorance and the seeking after a sign mentality.
~~~~The resurrected Jesus has never appeared to anyone. (see this page)~~~~
Except for well over 500 witnesses including enemies. His resurrection was so well documented and such a well known event, his enemies could not deny the empty tomb. Historians not related to Christianity record it as well. This simply an assertion with no basis in reality.
~~~~The Bible we have is provably incorrect and is obviously the work of primitive men rather than God. (see this page)~~~~
This is simply another assertion with no actual attempts at showing contradictions. The ‘see this page’ links to “Proof” 15, which I have already dealt with. If that’s the best he’s got, this battle was over a long time ago.
Show an actual error or contradiction. People elsewhere have done much better jobs of attempting that than MB.
~~~~ When we analyze prayer with statistics, we find no evidence that God is "answering prayers." (see this page)~~~~
Already addressed this. He has no new arguments.
~~~~Huge, amazing atrocities like the Holocaust and AIDS occur without any response from God.~~~~
And how does this prove God does not exist?
~~~~Let's agree that there is no empirical evidence showing that God exists.~~~~
No. I do not agree. Just because you don’t accept (or understand) the evidence that does exist, does not mean there is none at all.
~~~~ And there should be evidence - for example, this page describes a method that should produce incontrovertible evidence of God's existence. See also this page.~~~~
God is not yours to command.
~~~~Many of God's supposed attributes should create evidence. For example, the Bible says that God answers prayers. But we know that the belief in prayer is a superstition. The lack of evidence seen in the prayer realm acts as evidence that God is imaginary. So absence of evidence can be evidence of absence, because it shows that God is not doing things he has promised to do.~~~~
Answered this. Answering prayers is not an “attribute” like justice, mercy, grace, love, etc. It’s an action that He does. These ‘arguments’ are devolving rapidly and getting repetitive. I’m deleting nonsensical stuff or repetition for space.
~~~~If we had scientific proof of God's existence, we would talk about the "science of God" rather than "faith in God".~~~~
It’s called “Creation Science” or “Apologetics”, MB. Those are the formal names for it. Faith is a different topic that has to do with our response to God. They aren’t the same type of thing.
~~~~If we had scientific proof of God's existence, the study of God would be a scientific endeavor rather than a theological one.~~~~
False dichotomy.
~~~~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. ~~~~
This is not a necessary conclusion. It's based off an argumentum ad populum and a comparison to other systems with no connection.
~~~~Understanding the Rationalizations
The most common rationalization for the lack of scientific evidence is the "God must remain hidden" argument. See this proof for details.~~~~
Actually, I don’t hold to this argument so there is no point in me addressing it except to say that there is not a lack of scientific evidence. The heavens do declare the glory of God as David wrote in Psalm 19 and “the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:” as Paul said in Romans 1:20.
~~~~Many believers try to rationalize God's existence by saying something like this: "The existence of the universe proves God's existence. Something had to create the universe. Science has no explanation for the universe's creation. Therefore, God created it."
The way to understand that this is a rationalization is to look back in history. Ancient people, before they had science, explained many things that they did not understand with "gods." There have been sun gods, thunder gods, fertility gods, rain gods, etc.~~~~
Okay, first, he keeps using that word ‘rationalization’. I do not think it means what he thinks it means.
Second, the stories and myths told by ancients isn’t even in the same genre as Creation Science and apologetics. Not that I support all these personally, but it's like he’s never heard of ICR, Answers in Genesis, Dr. Dino, or one I do support, Apologetics Press. This guy is just unbelievable.
~~~~The Bible works the same way. It tries to explain many things that its ancient authors did not understand by attributing them in God. For example, if you read Genesis 9:12-13 you will find this:
And God said, "This is the sign of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for all future generations: I set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and the earth..."
This is the Bible's explanation of rainbows. Of course we now know that rainbows are a prismatic effect of raindrops. In the same way, Genesis chapter 3 tries to explain why human childbirth is so painful and Genesis chapter 11 tries to explain why there are so many human languages. These are myths, nothing more.~~~~
Except that before Genesis 9, there was no rain and so there was no rainbows in the clouds. When the dynamic of the water cycle changed and rain became a natural occurrence, then rainbows. Furthermore, there is nothing in Genesis 9 that demands that the rainbow seen was miraculous. It is a perfect example of God’s Providence, of Him setting up the Law of Refraction, the behavior of light through a prism, and then Him using the first rainbow as a symbol of the promise based on the change in the Earth.
So his argument against rainbows does not show that God does not exist. It only shows that he doesn’t comprehend things he reads very well.
~~~~In the same way, Genesis chapter 1 contains the Bible's creation myth. The creation of the universe and life is attributed to God. We already know that God had nothing to do with the creation of life (click here), but religious people still try to attribute the creation of the universe to God.~~~~
This one is the silliest ‘argument’ yet. He gives us a link to follow to ‘show’ that God had nothing to do with the creation of life, but the link is self-referencing. We are brought right back to the same article! If ever there was a circular argument, this has got to be it.
~~~~The fact is, God had nothing to do with the creation of the universe, in the same way that God has nothing to do with the sun rising or rainbows appearing. Science does not have a complete explanation for the universe's creation, yet. While it is true that science does not yet know everything there is to know about the universe, scientists will eventually figure it out. When they do, what they will find is that nature created the universe, not an imaginary being. ~~~~
The fact that MB even uses the word ‘creation’ here is already a step in the right direction toward admitting there is a God. He has already conceded that the universe is not eternal, conceded that it did not come from nothing, but that some First Cause created it. Just like I will be exploring in that other thread...probably when I’m done with this one.
In Truth and Love.