A forum post by XTimmy called A lack of evidence as proof gave me this idea:
Christians, often, say that atheism requires “faith”, because we can’t prove the non-existence of God.
However…
- What evidence is there against the existence of the Christian God? None, indeed.
- What evidence is there for the existence of the Christian God? None, as well.
- What evidence is there against the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? None, again.
- What evidence is there for the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? You guessed it… none.
Now, dear Christians, tell me, please, why it makes sense to believe in one and not in the other. 
Add to:
Related posts:
Subscribe to this blog
“Lack of evidence is not the evidence of the lackness/fault(?)” - Carl Sagan
“Absense of evidence is not evidence of absense”.
Interestingly, I’ve read in another blog, recently, something like this: that absense of evidence is evidence of absense; it’s just not definitive evidence. It doesn’t prove, but it suggests.
Anyway, my point here is that, if the arguments theists use for God (”you can’t prove he doesn’t exist”) also apply, perfectly, to the FSM, then I have no more reason to believe in one than in the other. There’s zero evidence against — or for — both.
I agree.
Pedro. =)
I’m Daniel.
Just happened to stumble on your blog here. Well, what can I make of this… it’s probably important to state what the intent of this reasoning is. If it’s supposed to bring the entire topic to a point of inconclusiveness, I’d say that to the extent that participants in the debate restrict themselves to such arguments will have no advantage over their opponents on the matter. This could just as well work in favor of the theist wanting to tame an atheist too confident in his claim to ignorance that he must somehow have proven his position as the correct one by default.
I might suggest though, that there is a way by which one can claim knowledge to the existence of God that doesn’t rely on evidentialist ways-of-knowing (or a way-of-knowing that demands “evidence” before one can believe in it as true).
It is possible that one can have veridical knowledge of something, an “inner witness” if you will, of the truthfulness of some proposition without being able to produce tangeable evidence for the thing known. Alvin Plantinga offers one compelling example of a man accused of murdering his wife: Suppose he and his spouse are overheard by their neighbors arguing ferociously one morning as he departs for work that day. Upon his return, he discovers she has been stabbed to death with a knife… distraught, he runs to his deceased spouse, and handles her and the weapon. No one witnessed these events to validate his claim that he was not the murderer, and neither is there any evidence to implicate another suspect. This man has veridical knowledge of his innocence, though he is unable to produce evidence of that. But his failure to produce this evidence counts as no deficiency in his claim to know something — namely that he did not murder his wife.
To respond to your challenge, then, two types of rejoinders could be made.
First, it’s important to understand that left to these factors alone, such conditions do not therefore constitute an argument offered from one person to the next in favor of the belief in question. It is rather a means to justify the thing known for the individual who has special access to that which gives him warrant to hold to his belief as true. So it is emminently reasonable to believe in God’s existence if that is made known to us in a way similar to how the husband in our above illustration could claim knowledge of his innocence, and indeed these sorts of knowledge-claims are legitimately made all the time in people’s daily experiences.
Now suppose an individual makes a dramatic knowledge-claim to some proposition and appeals to something like this model as his way of knowing it. Before we embark on any serious contemplation on the factual nature of this individual’s truth-claims, it seems it will be ever much more necessary that we at least determine the sincerity behind the person’s claims if external evidences do not appear to be forthcoming.
So what sorts of things should I look for to validate the sincerity in his stated beliefs? Perhaps something like the absence of open admissions to systemic falsehood by both its founding member and by general consensus. So it seems that FSM fails this simple test as any serious contender against the God of Classical Theism.
Basically, we can’t prove that there is or there isn’t a God or a FSM, but based on the evidence we see - we can form a justified opinion using the more rational approach, that there is no God.
Fido,
I think -given what’s been presented here– it would be a bit disingenuous to suppose the God of Classical Theism and FSM are even on equal terms such that one can reasonably state they are both equally “unprovable”. No founder of the world’s major theistic traditions make any claim that theirs was an enterprise in satire or parody. In the case of Christianity, Jesus’ closest disciples are known to have died for their beliefs; this is not to say that their martyrdom proves their claims are true, but it certainly passes the sincerity test I’ve laid out in my previous remarks, and so it seems FSM isn’t even a serious contender in the debate.
In any case, if one has no means to rationally resolve the matter of God’s non-existence, to what sort of evidence does the atheist appeal to justify his opinion as the “more rational”? I haven’t seen just how Plantinga’s model fails to be rational, or that it is even a “less rational” than the alternative. If at this stage, the atheist concedes God’s existence cannot be proven either way, it seems theism must be at least as rational of a position to hold as atheism — unless one tries to introduce other elements into the debate to bring us to a conclusion favoring one position over the other. If such arguments are to succeed, then it is simply not the case that God’s existence cannot be determined either way.
Daniel,
First, thank you for your reasoned argument. It is refreshing in it’s
lack of vituperative rhetoric. FSM is, at its core, just a parody of
the claims of “facts” that some “religious” folk use to support them
in their beliefs. I strongly suspect you already understand this.
You were, in my view, providing an argument as to why you hold that
God and FSM are not the same and should not be held to the same
standards. Accept that I believe they are not the same either. If
only because I would be utterly astonished were I to suddenly realize
someone really believed in The Flying Spaghetti Monster; whereas, I am
not astonished that someone believes in their Christian God.
However, valid as your point is about personal “veridical” knowledge
of God, it does not really release Christians from providing some
level of measurable proof of God. Continuing your excellent “innocent
husband” analogy, the husband would still have an ability to
demonstrate that he could not have committed the murder. He could
demonstrate that his veridical knowledge of his innocence is in fact
true. A finger print here. A clump of hair there. A foot print. A
jimmied door. Time of death. Clues which could be used to directly
and indirectly support his innocence or at the very least offer
sincere questions as to his guilt.
Just so, a Christian should be able to supply measurable clues that
collectively or individually prove, or at least substantiate in some
way, the veracity of their claims. Whether that religion is
Christianity or a parody known collectively as “The Flying Spaghetti
Monster”. References to others’ writings are not proof. Nor is a
claim of personal “faith”. Neither is a clue.
I have no personal knowledge of a Christian God. I haven’t had any
experience of the truth of God. Daily or otherwise. Christians might
argue that to be my failure not God’s. That would be another
discussion requiring lots of words. It is sufficient for me to
counter that I am willing to believe in God; however, show me the
clues.
Nelson
Nelson!
Thanks for joining in, and for your well-written response. As you may well know, topics like these can easily expand beyond a point of reasonable manageability, so I’ll try to restrain my remarks to a brief outline of where I’d go in the discussion and see if this satisfies the topic at hand.
It seems we do agree that the Christian can, in-principle, demonstrate the truthfulness of his claims insofar as his circumstances enable him to do so. In fact, I happen to think that there really are good reasons to think God exists independently of that “inner witness”, though that would also require me to take up more space here than I’d like.
But suppose we encounter a theist who cannot –whether by his lack of sophistication or access to evidential resources– provide such clues to God’s existence. The above model nonetheless shows that it is possible to really know something incorrigibly, even if external evidences are not forthcoming. The purpose here is not to convert others, but to secure the knowledge of God’s existence as wholly rational for the person who arrives at this conclusion in the manner described above.
I did qualify my thought-experiment by mentioning no witnesses were present to authenticate the husband’s claim to innocence, and that there was no evidence to implicate another suspect. Can we further conceive of circumstance where fingerprints, clumps of hair, or footprints are also not present? Or perhaps such evidences were present, but not properly gathered? Now I may be asking to much… is it improbable? Yes, I would think so. Improbable as it is, however, we appear to have no shortage of wrongly convicted citizens of capital crimes. They were apparently not successful in producing evidence of their innocence prior to their convictions, and I suspect there are probably a great many more of such persons who will never be exonerated despite their inner knowledge that they did not commit the crimes of which they’ve been accused.
Do each of these scenarios show the Evidentialist model of authenticating truth-claims to be completely bankrupt? Not at all. Only that as a comprehensive framework of knowledge, it is flawed, and therefore one need not always comply with Evidentialist criterion before legitimately holding to a belief as true.
I would suggest that Christianity needs EXTERNAL evidence to be worthwhile.
However, one can assess likelihood of existence by analysis of the object under discussion.
For example, does the sasquatch really exist? Well, we don’t know, but we can analyze whether or not the sasquatch is logically self-consistent. Did dragons ever exist? We don’t know, but we can assess whether or not dragons make logical sense.
It is the same with God and the FSM. As far as I can tell, the FSM has no internal logic or consistency with what we know of the laws of physics. Is spaghetti suitable material for building a living creature, or even a cosmic being?
By contrast, God contradicts no known laws. The definition of God is “reality, but with personality”, that is, stating a belief in God is stating the assertion that ultimate reality is personal. Is this statement in contradiction with any laws? Is it internally inconsistent?
If not, then it is more likely that God is the case than it is that the FSM is the case.
-micah
http://emergentchristian.blogspot.com/
Not to break up the flow of rather interesting responses, but I do seem to recall this particular subject, FSM included, on an episode of South Park. To think, some people doubt that show’s intelligence.
Please continue with the discussions
Micah: saying that “God is outside reality” is a cop-out: “oh, all those rules don’t really apply to him, you know?” Besides, since reality is what exists, and since nothing has ever been observed outside reality, the suggestion of something outside it already violates some rules.
Your ““reality, but with personality” definition is not typical of Christians, by the way. It’s quite more pantheistic (though pantheists don’t usually say that the universe has personality).
[quote comment="6045"]Micah: saying that “God is outside reality” is a cop-out: “oh, all those rules don’t really apply to him, you know?” Besides, since reality is what exists, and since nothing has ever been observed outside reality, the suggestion of something outside it already violates some rules.[/quote]
I am definitely NOT saying that God is outside of reality. You seem to have misread my comment. I am NOT saying that God lies outside of proof. Quite the opposite.
NOTHING is outside of Reality. I am suggesting that the 4-dimensional, single-history slice of the universe we are familiar with is not all of Reality. I hold to the Multiple-Histories Interpretation of Quantum Physics, and I believe that it accurately describes Reality; a Reality on a nearly infinite scale.
The Hypothesis that God exists equates to the statement “The ultimate nature of Reality is personal”. I believe we can demonstrate this logically, if we hold to the Multiple-Histories Interpretation (NOT the mystical Copenhagen Interpretation) of Quantum Physics.
[quote]Your “reality, but with personality” definition is not typical of Christians, by the way. It’s quite more pantheistic (though pantheists don’t usually say that the universe has personality).[/quote]
It is actually panENtheistic. And although it may not be typical of Christians today, it is quite typical of Christianity. Consider the Jewish statement “God is ONE, there is nothing else beside him”. Consider Paul’s statement, “IN HIM we move and live and have our being”. Or “He is above all, and through all, and in all”.
-micah
http://emergentchristian.blogspot.com/
So, it’s like God is a body and we’re cells inside it, unaware of the nature of the body, and of what we really are? Something like that?
Hmmm…no, I don’t think I would describe it that way. An analogy I would use is that of bubbles floating on top of the ocean. The ocean is immensely deep, and the bubbles are part of the ocean, but the bubbles only see the surface.
The surface is the part of the universe we see. We are the bubbles. Reality / God is the ocean.
However, this is just an analogy. The problem with analogies of this sort is that they tend to be taken too literally, when they are really only intended to be mental pictures.
More literally, the nature of the universe is like this: It is composed of matter. Matter is just a structured form of energy. Energy is just a particular type of information. Ultimately the universe is simply information. So ultimately, we are formed from information. Ultimate Reality is information, and nothing else.
Now, my God hypothesis reads like this: “the nature of the universe is information, and the nature of this information is personal”.
Maybe we should talk about what it means for something to be “personal”.
-micah
http://emergentchristian.blogspot.com/
http://www.reddingbrothers.com/
I just stumbled this page, excellent argument. However, to all the people that continue to justify that the FSM is not real but god must be because there is a bible, and it feels right, and there were martyrs for god, i ask you this. What of the people that wrote down the heroics of Zeus and his fellow gods, what of the people that died for the Horus, or the countless other gods that have popped up throughout history to fullfil the needs of their creators only to be worshiped for thousands of years. And lets not forget that christianity, jesus, and the entire idea of the christian religion is a mirror image of Mithras, thought up hundreds of years before christianity this link explains mithras and the connections(http://jdstone.org/cr/files/mithraschristianity.html).
Maybe we should rellying on an imaginary friend of whom there is just as much evidence and faith as there was for every other god throughout history.
As to this husband, perhaps he’s mad. Perhaps he is delusional in his belief that he didn’t kill his wife. Call it guilt, call it denial but he’s flipped. He cannot face the fact that he has killed someone he loves. He totally believes he didn’t do it.
That’s not good enough though is it. He may think he didn’t, but that’s a position he’s chosen to believe in order to protect his mental integrity, so he can make sense of the world and his role in it.
The analogy is weak, I know. But this bloke has a burden to prove he didn’t do it. How can we be secure in his contention that he is innocent? He may, after all, just be totally barking. Our opinion of this would change quickly if he could just provide a few scraps of evidence that showed his claims to be true. Without them, his claims fly in the face of logic and deduction.
About the husband. We know how to prove the husband’s innocence or guilt and we know what evidence we would need to collect to do so. How do you prove God? Well apparently you can’t because he stands outside the natural testable world. You can only take people’s word for it. The existence of God is nothing but a bad gut feeling.
The burden of proof lies upon the one who introduces a proposed theory, fact or whatever. Meaning that if you say god exists and I say he doesn’t, the burden lies on the person that claims that this object exists, not to me, because the burden of such an argument would be carried overwhelmingly by the side that supports a belief in god.