Even the most pious believer has to admit that there is no scientific evidence for God or anything else supernatural. If there were, it would be in the textbooks along with the evidence for electricity, gravity, neutrinos, and DNA. This doesn't bother most believers because they have heard many times that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
However, just repeating a statement over and over again does not make it true. I can think of many cases where absence of evidence provides robust evidence of absence. The key question is whether evidence should exist but does not. Elephants have never been seen roaming Yellowstone National Park. If they were, they would not have escaped notice. No matter how secretive, the presence of such huge animals would have been marked by ample physical signs -- droppings, crushed vegetation, bones of dead elephants. So we can safely conclude from the absence of evidence that elephants are absent from the park.
For thirty years physicists have been searching for a particle called the Higgs boson that hypothetically plays a key role in the universe, so important that it has been referred to (perhaps facetiously) as the "God Particle." In the standard model of particles and forces put in place in the 1970s and consistent with every observation since, Higgs bosons pervade the universe and generate mass, the very stuff of matter. We have failed to observe them so far because we have lacked the necessary instruments. However, there are good theoretical reasons to believe that the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) in Geneva, now accumulating its initial data, should provide evidence for the Higgs. If it does not -- a prospect most physicists regard as possible -- then the Higgs boson would be shown not to exist.
That is the situation with the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God. Until recent times, absence of evidence for his existence has not been sufficient to rule him out. However, we now have enough knowledge that we can identify many places where there should be evidence, but there is not. The absence of that evidence allows us to rule out the existence of this God beyond a reasonable doubt.
Now, I am not talking about all conceivable gods. Certainly the deist god who does not interfere in the world is difficult to rule out. However, the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God, whom I identify with an uppercase G, is believed to play such an active role in the universe that his actions should have been detected, thus confirming his existence. Let me present four examples.
I will begin with the origin of the visible universe. Our knowledge today allows us to push back in time to barely a trillionth of a second after the universe began. Extrapolating from there to the origin, we find that the universe began in a tiny (but not infinitesimal) region of space. Now, information only exists when it is embodied in some physical system, and we know that there is a limit to how compact information can be. This tiny region of space could not have contained more than a few bits of information -- far too little to specify the universe that evolved from it.
As the universe expanded, it could hold more information. This created an environment in which order could emerge -- as, over time, through an endless series of random events, it did. But the tiny amount of information contained in the very early universe was not enough to include any plans of some creator at that time. This allows for the possibility of a deist god who set things up, started things going randomly, and then left. It does not allow for some specific plan of creation to be embodied in the universe from the beginning. A God with such a plan can be ruled out beyond a reasonable doubt.
Next, consider the claim that the universe was designed. Many people give this as a reason to believe in God. They cannot see how the order of the universe can have come about naturally. However, observations in physics, cosmology, and biology have been scoured for evidence for design in the universe, evidence that should be there if there were a designer God. None has been found. This includes the frequently heard claim that the parameters of physics and cosmology exhibit a fine-tuning for the evolution of life. That subject will be covered in great detail in my next book: The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: How the Universe is not Designed for Us. My conclusion is that the claims of fine-tuning are based on inadequate knowledge of physics.
Intelligent design in biology has been thoroughly refuted in recent years, so I need not say much. Everywhere biologists look they find evidence of randomness and haphazard arrangements that would be called incompetent if they were designed. No matter where scientists cast their eyes, the universe they see looks just like it should look if there was no divine design.
Third, consider the supposed power of intercessory prayer. Well-executed experiments by reputable institutions such as Harvard, Duke, and the Mayo Clinic have failed to find that prayer improves the recovery of hospital patients. Apologists simply say God did not choose to respond to this test. But you can bet they would have changed their tune if the results had been positive. Trillions of prayers have been tendered over millennia. Of course, most sick people get better anyway, except once. If the God most people worship and pray to does exist, intercessory prayer would have a better batting average than what you would get from the normal operation of the natural world, including luck. It doesn't.
As the final example, the Abrahamic God is believed by his worshipers to talk to people and provide information they otherwise did not know. Nothing could be easier to test scientifically. All you have to do is find a few examples where a truth has been revealed that later was confirmed. This could be something simple, such as a prediction of some future event that turned out to be confirmed. This has never happened.
Of course, claims of revelation can be found in all three monotheisms, but none stand up to critical scrutiny. The so-called prophecies in scriptures were all made in the distant past and can't be tested since the events prophesied have already happened, or, as in the case of Jesus returning in a generation, long been falsified.
In all of these examples, evidence for God should have been found, but was not. This absence of evidence is evidence of absence. It refutes the common assertion that science has nothing to say about God. In fact, science can say, beyond any reasonable doubt, that God -- the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God -- does not exist.
firstly, because I know a non-scientific Ad Hominem argument when I see one,and secondly, how on earth could a theologically untrained novice say anything meaningful about biblical prophecy, and pray tell, by what scholarly authority does he presume to pontificate on how many of the prophecies in the Scripture have or have not be fulfilled?
of the slightly less than eight hundred thousand words in the King Jame version of the original manuscripts, there are over 834 fulfilled prophecies, this before we even leave the ground of the Old Testament. And with a above average grasp of history, a Bible and a Concordance, anyone can see this for themselves.
And, on the contrary, if there was one documented proof that the Bible was inaccurate, it certainly would be coming from scholars with an axe to grind talking out of the side of their mouth, it would make world wide news, and be publish in every major newspaper on this planet!
but such is the power of misinformation, that so many today believe the Bible to be inaccurate.
And I would advise Mr. Stenger if he wishes to find evidence of God so dearly he spent all his time searching for Him, he should go and find the nearest little storefront church, and fall upon his knees, and if his heart is right, he will certainly find Him, and doubtless return to us, and break our teeth with the Good News!
One such was from the pen of David, the sweet Psalmist of Israel: "The FOOL saith in his heart, no God!"
And, when I was quite young and a precocious reader, I read these words from a prophecy by Jude in the New Testament:
"But, beloved remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our lord Jesus Christ, how they told you THERE SHOULD BE MOCKERS IN THE LAST TIME, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts?"
Well, Victory Stenger, by his own glossing, inaccurate, Prophecy-despising testimony, has just fulfilled Jude's prophecy to the letter in your sight!!!
And as James O'dea so rightly said, in his piece "finding the Holiest of Holies" in this same issue:
that as long as spirit is denied, science will continue to live its current schizophrenia as both evocateur of human possibilities and enlightenment and servant of a frighteningly reductionist materialism?
And I for one, will remain quite comfortable with my knowledge of God, and will continue to do so, until 'Science starts dealing with the spirit...the true creative power of the universe.
The real reason why Science has been unable to find any evidence of God, is simply because they are using material instruments to in their attempts to measure a spirit!!!
St. John 4: 24 "God is a spirit:"
To "NotARhetoricalQuestion" :
I was not familiar with the "God-of-the-Gaps" argument until I read your comment to one of my replies.
Since, I looked it up and discovered that to my understanding it translates into attributing everything unexplained to "God".
It may be related to my reply, but, that was not the point I was trying to make.
However, I do believe that it is impossible for mankind to understand everything about the Universe. The Universe that we think we've envisioned the magnitude and age of ( based on all of the " Big Bang " analyses I've heard and read about ) may not be reflective of the actual magnitude and age of even a larger or INFINITELY large Universe. I think we will NEVER know even that. I think there will always be "gaps".
To me - the Universe is Godly enough for me to believe in - I had better the way I look at it - the REALITY is that I'm living in it and part and parcel of it - like every other person / living thing / inanimate object / material / partical / form of energy mankind knows of.
I was not familiar with the "God-of-the-Gaps" argument until I read your comment to one of my replies.
Since, I looked it up and discovered that to my understanding it translates into attributing everything unexplained to "God".
It may be related to my reply, but, that was not what the point I was trying to make.
However, I do believe that it is impossible for mankind to understand everything about the Universe ? The Universe that we think we've envisioned the magnitude and age of ( based on all of the " Big Bang " analyses I've heard and read about ) may not be reflective of the actual magnitude and age of even a larger or INFINITELY large Universe. I think we will NEVER know even that. I think there will always be "gaps".
To me - the Universe is Godly enough for me to believe in - I had better the way I look at it - the REALITY is that I'm living in it and part and parcel of it - like every other person / living thing / inanimate object / material / partical / form of energy mankind knows of.
These are not universally held beliefs.
There is no solid evidence of the Higgs-Boson, and yet we're driven by theories.
Absence of evidence is still not evidence of absence.
Also, the tiny pre-universe is a weak argument against God. God would be outside of said universe.
The second example can't possibly be confirmed. If prayer worked, but only sometimes, you would obviously attribute it to luck. You don't believe in prayer. So you can't honestly and objectively exclude those cases.
The third, though, is just outright wrong. There have been cases, just they're also sometimes attributed to luck, making it impossible for you (specifically) to see them.
I'm not saying God exists. Just that your arguments suck.
/
Other traditions have other rules for prayer, but we can discount the Christian tradition through hard evidence.
Changing the title would make it even more incomprehensible.
/
this: "However, the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God, whom I identify with an uppercase G, is believed to play such an active role in the universe that his actions should have been detected, thus confirming his existence."
any omnipotent being can avoid this trap, merely by circumventing the "laws" of physics, which it "created" in the first place. in other words, a god that doesn't want to be found, won't be found.
debating the existence or non-existence of some supreme being is certainly an enjoyable pasttime, but it doesn't contribute much to the advancement of the species, and it certainly doesn't solve any pressing social issues.
next!
Interesting....
To all our deist (lowercase 'g') friends: you are exempt from making the above list, and may spend the next hour talking amongst yourselves about the spiritual force in the universe which never made any promises, predictions, proclamations, or punishments. Evidence for those gods has never been searched for, and needn't exist.
Oh wait...
Yes, but a mother love is of an actual existence being, her child. Dr. Stenger was speaking of a participatory god whose daily involvement in physical human life should have been evident physically.
As I like to tell people, the Universe doesn't give a damn about what happens between your ears. So the idea of an Omnipotent being who will judge you not just on physical impact upon the world around you, but every thought and emotion you ever had doesn't necessarily conflict with the Universe's concerns, though there certainly is space for overlap.
And your statement concerning the "mind's eye" is fallible, t best, because even the most imaginative human cannot begin to fathom the realities of Omnipotence. At best we assign human characteristics to our god so we can feel kinship despite the obvious disparities of our existences. At worst we assign human characteristics to our god to excuse our own inhumanity; further proof of just how far we have to go before we no longer have to argue ourselves superior to the animal world.
Does not the scientist search the physical world and do not the faithful search the abstract, meaning mainly within themselves? Yet if the latter does enter into or cause occurrences within the former, would there not be some form of evidence to be discovered other than individual faith?
Dr. Stenger qualified his remarks, just as you placed god into the mind. Apparently you think his missing evidence is hiding inside himself?
THink you can prove me wrong?