No Evidence for God, Therefore No God: Part II

No Evidence for God, Therefore No God: Part II

In Part I, we explored the flaws in the atheistic claim that a lack of empirical evidence for God proves God's nonexistence. We discussed how this argument commits a logical fallacy—argumentum ad ignorantiam—and how science, by its nature, is limited to studying the material universe, not metaphysical realities. In this second part, we will expand on these ideas, examining why the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, the role of non-empirical ways of knowing, and the positive case for belief in God through reason, experience, and inference.

1. Absence of Evidence Is Not Evidence of Absence

The phrase "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is often cited in debates about God's existence, and for good reason. It highlights a critical distinction: failing to find something does not prove it does not exist. Consider historical examples. Before the discovery of the planet Neptune in 1846, there was no direct evidence of its existence. Yet, its gravitational effects on Uranus hinted at an unseen planet. Scientists inferred Neptune’s existence through indirect evidence before it was observed. Similarly, the lack of empirical "proof" for God does not negate the possibility—or even probability—of a transcendent cause.

Philosophically, this principle applies to metaphysical questions. God, as traditionally understood in theistic traditions, is not a physical object subject to laboratory testing. Expecting empirical evidence for a non-material being is like demanding a microscope to detect love or a telescope to observe justice. These are category errors. Instead, we must consider whether there are rational grounds—beyond empirical science—for inferring God's existence.

2. Beyond Empiricism: Other Ways of Knowing

Empiricism, while powerful, is not the sole path to truth. The original post noted that science cannot address questions of ultimate purpose or meaning. Here, we expand on this by exploring other valid modes of knowledge:

• Reason and Logic: Philosophical arguments for God, such as the cosmological, teleological, and ontological arguments, rely on deductive and inductive reasoning rather than sensory data. For instance, the cosmological argument posits that the universe’s existence and contingency require a non-contingent, uncaused cause—often identified as God. These arguments may not provide "proof" in the scientific sense, but they offer coherent, rational grounds for belief.
• Moral Intuition: Most people, regardless of culture or era, share a sense of objective morality—certain acts, like torturing the innocent, are universally wrong. The moral argument for God suggests that objective moral values and duties are best explained by a moral lawgiver. Without a transcendent source, morality risks becoming subjective, reducible to cultural preferences or evolutionary instincts.
• Personal Experience: While subjective, personal encounters with the divine—through prayer, mystical experiences, or transformative moments—carry weight for individuals. These experiences, reported across cultures and centuries, cannot be dismissed as mere delusion without evidence to the contrary. As philosopher William Alston argued, religious experiences have epistemic value similar to sensory experiences, provided they are consistent and coherent.

These non-empirical approaches complement science, offering a fuller picture of reality. Dismissing them in favor of a strictly materialist worldview arbitrarily limits human inquiry.

3. The Positive Case: Clues Pointing to God

Rather than merely critiquing the "no evidence" claim, let’s consider positive reasons to infer God’s existence. The universe itself provides intriguing clues:

• The Fine-Tuning of the Universe: The physical constants governing the universe—such as the strength of gravity or the cosmological constant—are exquisitely calibrated to allow life. Physicist Paul Davies has noted that the odds of these constants aligning by chance are vanishingly small. The fine-tuning argument suggests that a purposeful intelligent design better explains this precision than random chance or an unguided multiverse hypothesis.
• The Origin of the Universe: The Big Bang theory, supported by cosmic microwave background radiation and redshift observations, points to a finite beginning of the universe roughly 13.8 billion years ago. This raises the question: what caused the universe? A timeless, immaterial, and immensely powerful cause—consistent with the concept of God—offers a compelling explanation.
• Consciousness and the Human Mind: The emergence of consciousness remains a mystery to science. Materialist explanations struggle to account for subjective experience, free will, and the capacity for abstract thought. Theistic frameworks propose that consciousness reflects a purposeful design, with humans created in the "image" of a conscious, rational deity.

These clues do not constitute "proof" in the empirical sense, but they form a cumulative case for theism. Like pieces of a puzzle, they suggest a purposeful intelligence behind reality.

4. The Limits of Atheism’s Counterarguments

Atheists often respond to theistic arguments by invoking naturalism—the view that everything can be explained by natural processes. However, naturalism faces its own challenges:

• The Problem of Ultimate Explanation: Naturalism assumes the universe is self-explanatory, yet it struggles to answer why there is something rather than nothing. Theistic explanations, while not empirically verifiable, provide a metaphysically satisfying answer: a necessary being (God) grounds existence itself.
• The Multiverse Hypothesis: To counter fine-tuning, some atheists propose a multiverse—an infinite array of universes with varying constants. Yet, the multiverse remains speculative, lacking empirical evidence. Ironically, it requires the same kind of faith critics attribute to theists.
• Scientism’s Self-Defeat: The insistence that only science can yield truth undermines itself. The statement "only empirical evidence is valid" is not itself empirically verifiable. Scientism, therefore, is a philosophical stance, not a scientific one, and it cannot dismiss metaphysical claims without engaging them on their own terms.

5. Faith and Reason in Dialogue

The debate over God’s existence is not a zero-sum game. Belief in God does not require abandoning reason, nor does skepticism necessitate rejecting faith. The Catholic intellectual tradition, for instance, has long held that faith and reason are complementary. As St. John Paul II wrote, “Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth.”

For those who demand empirical evidence for God, the challenge is to recognize the limits of that demand. For theists, the task is to articulate a reasoned case that engages both heart and mind. Ultimately, the question of God’s existence invites humility—an acknowledgment that our finite minds may not fully grasp the infinite.

Conclusion

The claim “no evidence for God, therefore no God” oversimplifies a profound question. It ignores the limits of empirical science, the validity of non-empirical knowledge, and the cumulative case for theism drawn from reason, experience, and the universe’s order. While absolute proof of God may elude us, the clues—fine-tuning, the universe’s origin, consciousness, and moral intuition—point toward a purposeful intelligent design. Rather than closing the conversation, the absence of definitive evidence invites us to explore deeper, to reason boldly, and to remain open to the transcendent.

What do you think? Does the lack of empirical evidence for God settle the question, or are there other paths to truth worth exploring? Share your thoughts below!

---