4

Every mystery we ever had to solve that was solved in some way was explained through natural causes. This includes the diversification of life, thunder, etc.

On the one hand, the large amount of time we’ve had in investigating matters and not seeing any definitive evidence of god seems to count as evidence only against a specific type of god: a god who would directly intervene in an obvious way. For example, clearly, a god who decides to speak a voice from the clouds where the entire globe can hear it and says “Here I am” in 2022 does not exist. For otherwise, this would have happened and been recorded.

On the other hand, the invisible and the nonexistent look alike. Similarly, absence of evidence often looks like evidence of absence. And the longer this goes, the more surprising it would seem, atleast intuitively, to find out that god indeed does exist.

So should we decrease our confidence in god the longer we go not finding him?

Improve this question
7
  • It depends on the offer of your God. Some forgive any sin, others are quite demanding.
    – RodolfoAP
    Commented Jul 8, 2023 at 11:46
  • @RodolfoAP I think that denying the existence of God is the only 'unforgivable' sin, because the unbeliever won't accept anything from God, and God won't override their free will. So the stakes are pretty high. A really tough God would provide no evidence but punish you eternally for not believing. It is like a Trolley Problem.
    – Scott Rowe
    Commented Jul 8, 2023 at 11:49
  • What "confidence"... belief in god is faith.
    – Mauro ALLEGRANZA
    Commented Jul 8, 2023 at 12:43
  • 2
    What material thing could you see that would convince you of the existence of an immaterial existence?
    – David Gudeman
    Commented Jul 8, 2023 at 15:47
  • 2
    I recommend not closing this question.
    – Hudjefa
    Commented Aug 25 at 6:05

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
2

The longer we go without finding some particular piece of evidence that is supposed to provide proof for a hypothesis is, in my view, reason to downgrade confidence in that hypothesis only insofar as we have reason to think we should find that evidence over time.

For example, some scholars hypothesize that the Oracle of Delphi of Ancient Greece ingested psychoactive substances; however, we don't have any concrete evidence one way or the other. Our confidence either way need not change even if we pass a thousand more years without any evidence, as it is reasonable to expect that we might not find any archeological evidence that would bear on the question.

Essentially, I think, our confidence in some hypothesis should only be affected by time insofar as something is happening over time that bears on the evidence for that hypothesis. If someone hypothesizes that Atlantis exists on the ocean floor somewhere and over time we're exploring more and more of the ocean floor without finding Atlantis, that would be reason to downgrade our confidence of the existence of Atlantis.

These are only similar to the question of God's existence if God's existence is dependent on the kind of empirical evidence that empirical evidence bears on. There are problems in mathematics that some mathematicians are confident have solutions, just ones we don't know yet (e.g. the Riemann hypothesis).

Or, think of prime numbers, where for the highest prime number we currently know mathematicians are confident there is another higher prime number even if we don't know it yet (evidence). No matter how much time goes on our confidence can remain unchanged.

I think the answer to your question turns on whether evidence for God's existence consists of empirical facts whose discovery is to be expected over time (e.g. arguments from design which held that nothing could explain the complexity of biology except God which were supplanted by evolution) or if evidence for God's existence is more akin to mathematical conjecture, where some believe we have good reason to believe that God exists on the basis of various arguments even if we are waiting for an exact proof. If we are looking for evidence of the latter kind, I don't think the passage of time would necessitate a downgrading of confidence.

P.S. I should say, though, that many philosophers do think we already have evidence of God's existence, empirical and conceptual (see the various sides for and against here, here, here, here, or here).

Improve this answer
1

I think the Bible itself would say that if there is honestly no good evidence for God, that we should not believe in Him. For example, Jesus Christ said, "If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works ..." (John 10:37-38). Hebrews 11:1 says that faith is the "evidence of things not seen." (See also, Isaiah 41:21)

But I think the term "clear-cut evidence" can easily become subjective in practice. For example, it's possible to desire to avoid a certain conclusion for reasons unrelated to the evidence, either consciously or subconsciously (e.g., John 3:19-21; II Peter 3:5). The attitude in approaching the evidence can make a big difference; and I think one common problem is that people can often approach this topic with a different set of rational rules than they use in practical life, especially when they really want to find something. So to answer your question, I would say yes, given the premise; but that the premise can easily be subjective; and I would argue that on the contrary, there actually is a lot of clear-cut evidence for God.

Improve this answer