I see the claim on here all the time that there is absolutely no evidence for God. I dont agree. I understand evidence in a Bayesian way: E is evidence for H if and only if Prob(H|E) > Prob(H). (See plato.stanford.edu/entries/evidence/). That is, I take evidence to be some fact that makes a hypothesis more likely than the hypothesis would be without that fact. Now, I am not here claiming that the evidence for God is sufficient, but I am claiming that there is no evidence for God is patently false. And with a Bayesian understanding of evidence in mind, I think it is quite easy to see that there is some evidence for God. Here are some examples: 1. That there is a universe of existing things rather than nothing. Think of it this way, if there were no universe and no God, there would be nothing that needs to be explained. The universe exists, and so it makes the hypothesis that God exists a little more likely than if there was no universe at all. 2. The fine-tuning of the universe. Sure there might be some multiverse explanation on the horizon. But generally speaking, if there were no fine-tuning at all, theism would be less likely. That is, if it turned out that the universe did not need much fine-tuning to sustain life, we would think God would be less necessary as a hypothesis. Conversely, fine-tuning is at least some evidence in favor of God. 3. Abiogenesis has never been observed. If abiogenesis were a common occurrence, we would think that would really make God less necessary. But generally we observe that life comes from life. And so it seems that this fits better with a world-view where biological life my have been brought into existence through the providence of a living God. 4. Consciousness. If there were no conscious beings, naturalism wouldnt be struggling to resolve the hard problem (a series of interconnected problems associated with intentionality, qualia, identity, individuation, other minds, moral responsibility and freedom). But consciousness is not surprising on theism since it posits that consciousness is fundamental and necessary. 5. Testimony from scripture of religious encounters with God. Sure, you might have your doubts... But if there were no scriptures or testimony at all, theism would be even less likely, wouldnt it? So, testimony must be considered some sort of evidence. 6. Contemporary miracle claims. Again, you might have your doubts, but imagine a world where there were absolutely no miracle claims at all. Such a world would make the existence of God less likely, so obviously claims of mystical experiences, headings, visions, and apparitions have to count in some way. 7. Common consent. Most people in most ages thought there was a god or Gods. If most people throughout time were atheists, and only a tiny minority thought God belief was reasonable, that would make Gods existence less likely. Surely Gods existence is more likely if most people believe there is a God than if hardly anybody does. Evidence can be explained in other ways. And one bit of evidence doesnt necessarily establish a hypothesis. But to claim that there is absolutely no evidence makes sense only if you are committed to the intrinsic impossibility of Gods existence. If God could not exist nothing could make that hypothesis more likely. But I think that most people are open to the possibility that there is a God. If so, I think it is reasonable to say that there is some evidence that counts in favor of God.
Posted on: Wed, 28 May 2014 21:53:28 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015