There is no evidence for the existence of God. If you're a theist and you've spent any time in the company of atheists you've heard this many times (or maybe you yourself have said it). A claim so casually thrown around and commonly held as the (one) sacred fact for the non-believers (especially among the new atheist circles of which I am highly critical) it's become nearly a be-all-end-all debate finisher which automatically assigns the „religious nuts“ their seat. As a theist in such circunstances you may wonder just how much truth is there to this claim. I, myself both a theist and a fan of evidence hold the statement to be a modern symbol for casual dismissal and intellectual laziness, atleast in the context in which it is most usually thrown. (Ofcourse if someone is truly unaware of the untruthfulness of this claim they aren't to be held guilty.)
In what follows I will give a rational and comprehensive account for why this commonly held attitude is full of errors. I do so to help any of those theists here who may have been slapped with this statement but are unable to counter it as well as those atheists who are unaware of the falsehood they're proclaiming in holding the above described view.
The essay will be divided in following parts:
- establishing evidence
- laying out evidence
- objection to evidentialism
- conclusion
The first (and most obvious) problem is the fact that the claim „there is no evidence“ is simply wrong. There is, I insist, more than one way to amount evidence for belief in God – there's certainly no shortage of it. What may this evidence be, you may wonder? Providing evidence for the existence of God is a long standing tradition in the discipline of apologetics. Evidence for the existence of God is best presented in form of arguments (be they deductive or inductive) and it is in the exact fashion that I intend to proceed.
Now, ofcourse the typical new-atheist may jump and say: „Arguments aren't evidence! You need science to have evidence!“ Another underlying problem lays in the belief that evidence is that which makes something certain (therefore making any „faith“ wrong by default). For this reason I find the precursor to laying out evidence is establishing what exactly evidence is.
The above described attitude attitude is ridiculous on so many levels, some of which I will go over here.
-It's confused in meaning
First off, it's confusing evidence with proof and knowledge with certainty. Evidence is broadly defined as anything one uses to support the claim. Proof in turn is simply a satisfying amount of evidence which constitutes the claim as true (or a fact), therefore proving it.
This is the most basic distinction between the two and the atheist seems to be guilty of mixing them up. Evidence need not prove the claim, it need only enforce it. Whether that evidence is good or not (to which extent it can lead the claim) will determine how much truth the claim holds. Second mistake you make is between knowledge and certainty. Epistemically, knowing something and being certain of something is not the same. Knowing something is simply being aware but being certain is undeniably being aware, therefore rendering your knowledge not merely a matter of perception but objective reality.
-It's logically inadequate
But enough with the definitions. There is another, dare I say more pressing problem, and that is the fact that even if one was to give what the one making the claim considers evidence (proof) they'd simply dismiss such evidence on the basis of not being scientific. The catch here is that by scientific the person means strictly material evidence.
But this is absolutely contradictory to the nature of discussion. Science is the study of the world around us so to require some sort of God-DNA collected in a test tube is no more than a cheap attempt of intellectual laziness when confronted with actual logical evidence. Experimental evidence is required for things that are within it's reach but not for that which transcends it. This doesn't mean the worth of such a case is to be dropped, rather it simply means that we need to turn to more applicable methods of research.
To explain, we're currently talking about the existence of God. God here is talked about as one that transcends both time and space, thus rendering all our knowledge limited. The problem lies in the following. Suppose we do stick to solely experimental methods, and suppose we actually find something one may think „this is it, we've proved God exists“, but no, little does one realise that it is actually this that would disprove God! For if God is able to be found in spacetime, then he isn't transcendant and therefore he wouldn't be God!
Ironically, to prove such an existence through empirical means would be to disprove it! Being a person who has a strong interest in philosophy and also happens to be a programmer, I know that if one method gives illogical results, the solution is to change the method. You don't insist that the problem is impossible to solve.
-It's philosophically naive
To tie to my previous statement. The skeptic is completely ignoring the existence of apriori and posteriori kinds of knowledge, both of which are valid and don't rely on any experimental proof what so ever. Also, one of the greatest minds in the history would disagree with them. Immanuel Kant in his work Critique of Pure Reason argues rather convincingly against such claims as yours. Even if you're not in the Kantian train of thought you'd be foolish to ignore the existence of disciplines such as epistemology which you quite obliviously do in limiting the scope of knowledge to that which we can test in a lab.
-It's against science
Finally, if logic and philosophy mean nothing to you, this one should. Science on it's own doesn't understand knowledge as something that is a 100% certain. In fact, the key disciplines nowadays are all about uncertainty. Cosmologists, modern physicists and mathematicians would (in a strong majority) agree that so long as something is in synch with our current knowledge and it doesn't break any laws in specific it is to be considered true, even if it isn't certain. This is known as the probability principle.
As a famous contemporary cosmologist Sean Carrol puts it:
"Science isn't in the business of proving things. Rather, science judges the merits of competing models in terms of their simplicity, clarity, comprehensiveness, and fit to the data. Unsuccessful theories are never disproven, as we can always concoct elaborate schemes to save the phenomena; they just fade away as better theories gain acceptance.
"
Arguments are simply statements that justify a certain belief and in these arguments evidence is being presented. For example:
1) All men are mortal
2) Socrates is a man
3) Therefore, Socrates is mortal
In this text-book example of an argument we're proposing a logically consistent reason to believe that Socrates is mortal. Now, you don't just write this off as bogus because there are no formulas in there. Instead, you simply look at the premises (1 and 2) and if they're right, 3 follows logically. In case of 1 we have good reasons to believe man are mortal as we're witnessing it every day, constantly confirming it and never debunking it. Therefore, our experience counts as evidence for this claim.
2 then is also a logical observation as Socrates is (well, was but you get the point) indeed a human being rather than a plant or an inanimate object. So yet again, our experience proves this to be true.
Thus, 3 logically follows from 1 and 2, backed up with the fact that we know Socrates died (despite not having his corpse for experimental purposes thus providing another point where experiments aren't necessarry).
Therefore, using philosophy, logic, reasoning and deduction is more than enough to bring out the evidence in matters Kant would call transcendant. Having said this, I'll now proceed to provide the exact same sort of evidence to build a case for a creator god, if nothing else, in deistic terms. The following arguments will be studied in a bit more closer fashion in the spoiler tag but if you're not interested in a discussion on their validity you're free to skip them.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument
Here, I'll present an argument known as Kalam Cosmological Argument:
Premise 1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause
Premise 2: The universe began to exist
Conclusion: Therefore, the universe has a cause
Put simply, whatever begins to exist will have to ipso facto be caused to exist by something else for if it weren't initiated by something else it would have to initiate itself, but this is absurd, for it would have to exist prior to existing. Science has showed us that the universe (spacetime) had a beginning in the Big Bang, therefore the universe itself was caused by something. Since that something has to be outside of spacetime it would have to be something akin to God, therefore this hints at the existence of a transcendant cause.
Critical overview:
Teleological argument from fine-tuning
In support of the fine-tuning theory I'll present a teleological argument for fine-tuning.
Premise 1: The world we live in is fine-tuned for life
Premise 2: Fine-tuning could've been a product of chance or design
Premise 3: Chance is inadequate
Conclusion: Therefore, it is due to design
What we see here is a probabilistic type of argument. Namely it rests on weiging the odds for two options and takes the one that has a higher chance of being true. Since design is sure to bring about tuning and chance is highly unlikely, design is a viable option to take. Design infers the existence of a designer, therefore we can take it as evidence for the existence of a designer.
Critical overview:
Argument from inherent information
Following, we have argument from inherent information. Now, this argument, unlike the first 2 which dealt with the cosmos and the world we live in, deals with that which is inside us – our genetic code. As a supposed man of science I'm pretty sure you're aware of the DNA, aminoacids and what all these terms mean so I won't waste time on explaining them (as this post is huge as it is).
The argument here rests on the fact that there is a scripted sequence of code inside every living thing including us humans. Such a code is so remarkably specific and well constructed that it is accurate to compare it to a computer program made by a programmer. So, through our bare intuition we can conclude that code requires a coder. Now it is possible for code to miraculously write itself down through random generation as was proposed by the (in)famous Dawkins himself, but these explanations are too improbable and inadequate as the analogies they use themselves imply outside intelligence.
It is far more logical through intuition, common sense and our everyday experience to conclude that the presence of writing or intelligent structure is a sign of intelligence.
___________________________________________
These were just some of many arguments presented as the case for God and there are also other even better (albeit more complex) arguments such as moral arguments, arguments from intentionality, historical arguments etc. Unravelling the entire history of apologetics would be a task far to great to explore here, but I believe I've made my point on there being evidence for the existence of God.
Whether this evidence provided is good or not is a different matter however. Evidence can be unpersuasive but it is still evidence. I, however, find the arguments presented more than reasonable to accept. We can agree to disagree but the story of lack of evidence falls flat here. The problems with the statement however are far deeper than simply being mistaken on the amount of evidence available.
Indeed, a far greater problem is the obsession with evidentialism. For those who don't know, Evidentialism is a view that a belief is only justified if sufficient evidence is presented for it. This, I believe is a mistaken claim. If the skeptic holds that no belief is rational unless one has evidence for it, then one is making a contradictory claim – what evidence does he have for believing he needs evidence to believe in rationality of beliefs which have evidential support and irrationality of those which don't?
Assuming one can give a satisfactory answer to the above there is a further problem. If not in it's structure than in the very fact that it implies itself as the only available view. I hold that it is just as reasonable for the theist to adopt a view known as reformed epistemology which entails that some beliefs are properly basic, therefore no justification is necesarry.
Such properly-basic beliefs include belief in the existence of minds (both one's own and others'), belief in love, one's own existence (in contrast to believing we're Boltzmann's brains) and – belief in God. Now one may say that belief in God is not properly basic. I, however, would disagree. Belief in God is a belief in person. If we are to accept there are other persons (or other minds) or if we were to accept our own personhood (our own mind) we should be willing to accept the belief in God as God is himself a personal figure and a mind – a mind of a different scale, but a mind non-the less.
Reformed epistemology as such grants a rational basis for belief in God even without the need for evidence external of the concept. One could argue, and I'm willing to concede, that it doesn't grant strong belief but only a mild acceptance, but even this is enough for weak theism. Thinkers like Alvin Platinga would disagree however.
In short, I find the statement that there is no evidence for God false in more ways than one. Regardless of what you may think about the arguments presented for the existence of God or reformed epistemology, the notion that there is no evidence is just false. One may argue ofcourse that the evidence is unpersuasive, but doing so one would have to lay out objections rather than simply dismiss everything said by ways presented in the opening part and play skeptic without accepting his fair share of the burden of proof. This wasn't a critique of skepticism in regards to belief in God but that of a growing trend of casual dismissal commonly seen on the internet.
In what follows I will give a rational and comprehensive account for why this commonly held attitude is full of errors. I do so to help any of those theists here who may have been slapped with this statement but are unable to counter it as well as those atheists who are unaware of the falsehood they're proclaiming in holding the above described view.
The essay will be divided in following parts:
- establishing evidence
- laying out evidence
- objection to evidentialism
- conclusion
Establishing evidence
The first (and most obvious) problem is the fact that the claim „there is no evidence“ is simply wrong. There is, I insist, more than one way to amount evidence for belief in God – there's certainly no shortage of it. What may this evidence be, you may wonder? Providing evidence for the existence of God is a long standing tradition in the discipline of apologetics. Evidence for the existence of God is best presented in form of arguments (be they deductive or inductive) and it is in the exact fashion that I intend to proceed.
Now, ofcourse the typical new-atheist may jump and say: „Arguments aren't evidence! You need science to have evidence!“ Another underlying problem lays in the belief that evidence is that which makes something certain (therefore making any „faith“ wrong by default). For this reason I find the precursor to laying out evidence is establishing what exactly evidence is.
The above described attitude attitude is ridiculous on so many levels, some of which I will go over here.
-It's confused in meaning
First off, it's confusing evidence with proof and knowledge with certainty. Evidence is broadly defined as anything one uses to support the claim. Proof in turn is simply a satisfying amount of evidence which constitutes the claim as true (or a fact), therefore proving it.
This is the most basic distinction between the two and the atheist seems to be guilty of mixing them up. Evidence need not prove the claim, it need only enforce it. Whether that evidence is good or not (to which extent it can lead the claim) will determine how much truth the claim holds. Second mistake you make is between knowledge and certainty. Epistemically, knowing something and being certain of something is not the same. Knowing something is simply being aware but being certain is undeniably being aware, therefore rendering your knowledge not merely a matter of perception but objective reality.
-It's logically inadequate
But enough with the definitions. There is another, dare I say more pressing problem, and that is the fact that even if one was to give what the one making the claim considers evidence (proof) they'd simply dismiss such evidence on the basis of not being scientific. The catch here is that by scientific the person means strictly material evidence.
But this is absolutely contradictory to the nature of discussion. Science is the study of the world around us so to require some sort of God-DNA collected in a test tube is no more than a cheap attempt of intellectual laziness when confronted with actual logical evidence. Experimental evidence is required for things that are within it's reach but not for that which transcends it. This doesn't mean the worth of such a case is to be dropped, rather it simply means that we need to turn to more applicable methods of research.
To explain, we're currently talking about the existence of God. God here is talked about as one that transcends both time and space, thus rendering all our knowledge limited. The problem lies in the following. Suppose we do stick to solely experimental methods, and suppose we actually find something one may think „this is it, we've proved God exists“, but no, little does one realise that it is actually this that would disprove God! For if God is able to be found in spacetime, then he isn't transcendant and therefore he wouldn't be God!
Ironically, to prove such an existence through empirical means would be to disprove it! Being a person who has a strong interest in philosophy and also happens to be a programmer, I know that if one method gives illogical results, the solution is to change the method. You don't insist that the problem is impossible to solve.
-It's philosophically naive
To tie to my previous statement. The skeptic is completely ignoring the existence of apriori and posteriori kinds of knowledge, both of which are valid and don't rely on any experimental proof what so ever. Also, one of the greatest minds in the history would disagree with them. Immanuel Kant in his work Critique of Pure Reason argues rather convincingly against such claims as yours. Even if you're not in the Kantian train of thought you'd be foolish to ignore the existence of disciplines such as epistemology which you quite obliviously do in limiting the scope of knowledge to that which we can test in a lab.
-It's against science
Finally, if logic and philosophy mean nothing to you, this one should. Science on it's own doesn't understand knowledge as something that is a 100% certain. In fact, the key disciplines nowadays are all about uncertainty. Cosmologists, modern physicists and mathematicians would (in a strong majority) agree that so long as something is in synch with our current knowledge and it doesn't break any laws in specific it is to be considered true, even if it isn't certain. This is known as the probability principle.
As a famous contemporary cosmologist Sean Carrol puts it:
"Science isn't in the business of proving things. Rather, science judges the merits of competing models in terms of their simplicity, clarity, comprehensiveness, and fit to the data. Unsuccessful theories are never disproven, as we can always concoct elaborate schemes to save the phenomena; they just fade away as better theories gain acceptance.
"
Laying out Evidence
Arguments are simply statements that justify a certain belief and in these arguments evidence is being presented. For example:
1) All men are mortal
2) Socrates is a man
3) Therefore, Socrates is mortal
In this text-book example of an argument we're proposing a logically consistent reason to believe that Socrates is mortal. Now, you don't just write this off as bogus because there are no formulas in there. Instead, you simply look at the premises (1 and 2) and if they're right, 3 follows logically. In case of 1 we have good reasons to believe man are mortal as we're witnessing it every day, constantly confirming it and never debunking it. Therefore, our experience counts as evidence for this claim.
2 then is also a logical observation as Socrates is (well, was but you get the point) indeed a human being rather than a plant or an inanimate object. So yet again, our experience proves this to be true.
Thus, 3 logically follows from 1 and 2, backed up with the fact that we know Socrates died (despite not having his corpse for experimental purposes thus providing another point where experiments aren't necessarry).
Therefore, using philosophy, logic, reasoning and deduction is more than enough to bring out the evidence in matters Kant would call transcendant. Having said this, I'll now proceed to provide the exact same sort of evidence to build a case for a creator god, if nothing else, in deistic terms. The following arguments will be studied in a bit more closer fashion in the spoiler tag but if you're not interested in a discussion on their validity you're free to skip them.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument
Here, I'll present an argument known as Kalam Cosmological Argument:
Premise 1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause
Premise 2: The universe began to exist
Conclusion: Therefore, the universe has a cause
Put simply, whatever begins to exist will have to ipso facto be caused to exist by something else for if it weren't initiated by something else it would have to initiate itself, but this is absurd, for it would have to exist prior to existing. Science has showed us that the universe (spacetime) had a beginning in the Big Bang, therefore the universe itself was caused by something. Since that something has to be outside of spacetime it would have to be something akin to God, therefore this hints at the existence of a transcendant cause.
Critical overview:
Now, this is a logically deductive argument, much like the example with Socrates. In order for it to be true all of it's premises must be true, they must be logically consistent and the conclusion must follow logically from the premises. So in order to refute it you'll need to do more than just wave your head and say „this isn't evidence“. Before you do that however I'll first go through each premise and lay out my defense for it and proper evidence which makes it true rather than not (in probabilistic terms ofcourse).
Premise 1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause
This, I believe, is a pretty obvious truth. The principle of causation and basic logic which is at hand when using terms such as „begin“ or „cause“ goes to show that in order for something to begin to exist there must have been a moment in which it didn't exist. As such, it couldn't have caused itself for then it would have to exist before it existed. Since this is an obvious logical contradiction one must conclude that something else caused it to begin existing.
Thus I'll consider this statement to be true rather than false given the scope of our current knowledge.
Premise 2: The universe began to exist
Here we come to the more sensitive part, still if you have any regard for contemporary cosmology you'll agree that the universe began to exist. The best currently available model, Big Bang, entails a cosmic beginning and virtually all our discoveries in recent years have been confirming this. Now, bearing in mind the Big Bang isn't a perfect model, there will probably be revisions to it as there have been in the past, but in no way do we have a reason to think that what will be revies will be the cosmic beginning for it is a necessary element in the theory – Big Bang always points to a singularity, which implies a beginning.
Even if we completely throw away cosmology and act as if there is no way science can (atleast at this point) deduce a case or even a beginning of the universe, we still have our reason and deduction to turn to. It has been well demonstrated that an actual infinity is impossible. First let's check what infinity is – a group of elements whose number is infinite, ie neverending. The problem with our universe being infinite is the fact that it would take an infinite amount of time for the universe to form at the point in wich it is now. I'll illustrate the paradoxes of infinity to make it simpler to understand.
-Hilbert's hotel. You might have heard of it. If you haven't it's an imaginary hotel with a supposed infinite number of rooms. Now, imagine that an infinite amount of guests come into the hotel asking for rooms. The employee says „Sure no problem“ and puts an infinite amount of guests to the infinite amount of rooms.
Now it may seem that the hotel is full, however it's not! Suppose another infinity of guests come to hotel asking for rooms. The employee says „Sure no problem“. He moves the person residing in room 1 into room 2, the person residing in room 2 to room 4, and so on until he places an infinity of already checked guests into an infinity of even numbered rooms. Now, the employee has yet again, a number of infinite rooms for the infinity of new guests. This way employee could just keep moving guests from one room to another and infinitely keep putting an infinite amount of guests in.
This proves that infinity can't even be matched by infinity itself!
Similarly, if this universe was eternal, it would imply an infinite past, wich is impossible, much like Hilbert's hotel or counting from 0 to infinity. The point in present could never be reached and thus our very existence points out that universe did in some moment begin to exist.
Even if our universe was a part of a biger multiverse, then that multiverse would face the same problem, as it would take an infinite amount of time for our universe to reach the stage in wich it is now.
Therefore, from these 2 premises it logically follows that the universe had something to cause it. Now, the god deal comes into picture. The only way something can cause a universe to begin existing, the cause must be transcendant of spacetime, must be immaterial, enormously powerful and animate.
Premise 1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause
This, I believe, is a pretty obvious truth. The principle of causation and basic logic which is at hand when using terms such as „begin“ or „cause“ goes to show that in order for something to begin to exist there must have been a moment in which it didn't exist. As such, it couldn't have caused itself for then it would have to exist before it existed. Since this is an obvious logical contradiction one must conclude that something else caused it to begin existing.
Thus I'll consider this statement to be true rather than false given the scope of our current knowledge.
Premise 2: The universe began to exist
Here we come to the more sensitive part, still if you have any regard for contemporary cosmology you'll agree that the universe began to exist. The best currently available model, Big Bang, entails a cosmic beginning and virtually all our discoveries in recent years have been confirming this. Now, bearing in mind the Big Bang isn't a perfect model, there will probably be revisions to it as there have been in the past, but in no way do we have a reason to think that what will be revies will be the cosmic beginning for it is a necessary element in the theory – Big Bang always points to a singularity, which implies a beginning.
Even if we completely throw away cosmology and act as if there is no way science can (atleast at this point) deduce a case or even a beginning of the universe, we still have our reason and deduction to turn to. It has been well demonstrated that an actual infinity is impossible. First let's check what infinity is – a group of elements whose number is infinite, ie neverending. The problem with our universe being infinite is the fact that it would take an infinite amount of time for the universe to form at the point in wich it is now. I'll illustrate the paradoxes of infinity to make it simpler to understand.
-Hilbert's hotel. You might have heard of it. If you haven't it's an imaginary hotel with a supposed infinite number of rooms. Now, imagine that an infinite amount of guests come into the hotel asking for rooms. The employee says „Sure no problem“ and puts an infinite amount of guests to the infinite amount of rooms.
Now it may seem that the hotel is full, however it's not! Suppose another infinity of guests come to hotel asking for rooms. The employee says „Sure no problem“. He moves the person residing in room 1 into room 2, the person residing in room 2 to room 4, and so on until he places an infinity of already checked guests into an infinity of even numbered rooms. Now, the employee has yet again, a number of infinite rooms for the infinity of new guests. This way employee could just keep moving guests from one room to another and infinitely keep putting an infinite amount of guests in.
This proves that infinity can't even be matched by infinity itself!
Similarly, if this universe was eternal, it would imply an infinite past, wich is impossible, much like Hilbert's hotel or counting from 0 to infinity. The point in present could never be reached and thus our very existence points out that universe did in some moment begin to exist.
Even if our universe was a part of a biger multiverse, then that multiverse would face the same problem, as it would take an infinite amount of time for our universe to reach the stage in wich it is now.
Therefore, from these 2 premises it logically follows that the universe had something to cause it. Now, the god deal comes into picture. The only way something can cause a universe to begin existing, the cause must be transcendant of spacetime, must be immaterial, enormously powerful and animate.
Teleological argument from fine-tuning
In support of the fine-tuning theory I'll present a teleological argument for fine-tuning.
Premise 1: The world we live in is fine-tuned for life
Premise 2: Fine-tuning could've been a product of chance or design
Premise 3: Chance is inadequate
Conclusion: Therefore, it is due to design
What we see here is a probabilistic type of argument. Namely it rests on weiging the odds for two options and takes the one that has a higher chance of being true. Since design is sure to bring about tuning and chance is highly unlikely, design is a viable option to take. Design infers the existence of a designer, therefore we can take it as evidence for the existence of a designer.
Critical overview:
Premise 1: The world we live in is fine-tuned for life
Here, I believe the statement is obviously correct. However, I wish to first make some things clear to avoid confusion. When I say fine-tuning I don't mean it in the sense of young-earth creationism. Instead I'm simply talking about fine-tuning in the sense that crucial constants of nature have been structured in right quantities to permit the formation of intelligent life.
If these constants were even slightly altered, the life as we know it wouldn't exist. Therefore, since the world has allowed us to exist it is fine-tuned.
Premise 3: Chance is inadequate
Chance on it's own brings us into a position in wich it is very unlikely we actually exist. This is a problem called Boltzman's brains. It goes like this:
The universe, as we know it, is a place in wich life (in this form) is very unlikely to occur. From the overall disequilbrium, there is a lot greater chance of, rather than creating an actual human living in an actual world, creation of a self-sustainable brain, a life-form wich could live on its own for a brief moment and then return into a state of chaos.
To top it off, it would be even more probable if there was a single brain necessarry. These brains are able to percieve illusions of life experiences, of living and pretty much the entirety of our experiences. It is a lot more likely for our world and ourselves ultimatively, to be just a product of a momentary illusion, a spark in a brean of a short-living organism before it suffocates in it's short existence.
If we are to go rationally, chance giving us the world we know and life we know in a hostile universe like this is a billion times less probable than us being just momentary illusions in brains wich are a lot more likely to occur.
This is a problem wich one cannot counter in any way as all empirical evidence would be a subject of the illusion. This is something no reasonable person is willing to accept.
When it comes to such high improbability, chance doesn't work as a convincing cause, thus the universe containing the planet as we know it has a lot bigger chance of being designed, rather than being made by chance.
The conclusion that follows logically as design is the only viable option and is on it's own more than plausible. But to better illustrate the plausibility, let's get to the third argument.
Here, I believe the statement is obviously correct. However, I wish to first make some things clear to avoid confusion. When I say fine-tuning I don't mean it in the sense of young-earth creationism. Instead I'm simply talking about fine-tuning in the sense that crucial constants of nature have been structured in right quantities to permit the formation of intelligent life.
If these constants were even slightly altered, the life as we know it wouldn't exist. Therefore, since the world has allowed us to exist it is fine-tuned.
Premise 3: Chance is inadequate
Chance on it's own brings us into a position in wich it is very unlikely we actually exist. This is a problem called Boltzman's brains. It goes like this:
The universe, as we know it, is a place in wich life (in this form) is very unlikely to occur. From the overall disequilbrium, there is a lot greater chance of, rather than creating an actual human living in an actual world, creation of a self-sustainable brain, a life-form wich could live on its own for a brief moment and then return into a state of chaos.
To top it off, it would be even more probable if there was a single brain necessarry. These brains are able to percieve illusions of life experiences, of living and pretty much the entirety of our experiences. It is a lot more likely for our world and ourselves ultimatively, to be just a product of a momentary illusion, a spark in a brean of a short-living organism before it suffocates in it's short existence.
If we are to go rationally, chance giving us the world we know and life we know in a hostile universe like this is a billion times less probable than us being just momentary illusions in brains wich are a lot more likely to occur.
This is a problem wich one cannot counter in any way as all empirical evidence would be a subject of the illusion. This is something no reasonable person is willing to accept.
When it comes to such high improbability, chance doesn't work as a convincing cause, thus the universe containing the planet as we know it has a lot bigger chance of being designed, rather than being made by chance.
The conclusion that follows logically as design is the only viable option and is on it's own more than plausible. But to better illustrate the plausibility, let's get to the third argument.
Argument from inherent information
Following, we have argument from inherent information. Now, this argument, unlike the first 2 which dealt with the cosmos and the world we live in, deals with that which is inside us – our genetic code. As a supposed man of science I'm pretty sure you're aware of the DNA, aminoacids and what all these terms mean so I won't waste time on explaining them (as this post is huge as it is).
The argument here rests on the fact that there is a scripted sequence of code inside every living thing including us humans. Such a code is so remarkably specific and well constructed that it is accurate to compare it to a computer program made by a programmer. So, through our bare intuition we can conclude that code requires a coder. Now it is possible for code to miraculously write itself down through random generation as was proposed by the (in)famous Dawkins himself, but these explanations are too improbable and inadequate as the analogies they use themselves imply outside intelligence.
It is far more logical through intuition, common sense and our everyday experience to conclude that the presence of writing or intelligent structure is a sign of intelligence.
___________________________________________
These were just some of many arguments presented as the case for God and there are also other even better (albeit more complex) arguments such as moral arguments, arguments from intentionality, historical arguments etc. Unravelling the entire history of apologetics would be a task far to great to explore here, but I believe I've made my point on there being evidence for the existence of God.
Whether this evidence provided is good or not is a different matter however. Evidence can be unpersuasive but it is still evidence. I, however, find the arguments presented more than reasonable to accept. We can agree to disagree but the story of lack of evidence falls flat here. The problems with the statement however are far deeper than simply being mistaken on the amount of evidence available.
Evidentialism problems
Indeed, a far greater problem is the obsession with evidentialism. For those who don't know, Evidentialism is a view that a belief is only justified if sufficient evidence is presented for it. This, I believe is a mistaken claim. If the skeptic holds that no belief is rational unless one has evidence for it, then one is making a contradictory claim – what evidence does he have for believing he needs evidence to believe in rationality of beliefs which have evidential support and irrationality of those which don't?
Assuming one can give a satisfactory answer to the above there is a further problem. If not in it's structure than in the very fact that it implies itself as the only available view. I hold that it is just as reasonable for the theist to adopt a view known as reformed epistemology which entails that some beliefs are properly basic, therefore no justification is necesarry.
Such properly-basic beliefs include belief in the existence of minds (both one's own and others'), belief in love, one's own existence (in contrast to believing we're Boltzmann's brains) and – belief in God. Now one may say that belief in God is not properly basic. I, however, would disagree. Belief in God is a belief in person. If we are to accept there are other persons (or other minds) or if we were to accept our own personhood (our own mind) we should be willing to accept the belief in God as God is himself a personal figure and a mind – a mind of a different scale, but a mind non-the less.
Reformed epistemology as such grants a rational basis for belief in God even without the need for evidence external of the concept. One could argue, and I'm willing to concede, that it doesn't grant strong belief but only a mild acceptance, but even this is enough for weak theism. Thinkers like Alvin Platinga would disagree however.
Conclusion
In short, I find the statement that there is no evidence for God false in more ways than one. Regardless of what you may think about the arguments presented for the existence of God or reformed epistemology, the notion that there is no evidence is just false. One may argue ofcourse that the evidence is unpersuasive, but doing so one would have to lay out objections rather than simply dismiss everything said by ways presented in the opening part and play skeptic without accepting his fair share of the burden of proof. This wasn't a critique of skepticism in regards to belief in God but that of a growing trend of casual dismissal commonly seen on the internet.
