Maybe it’s just me, but I’m starting to get really annoyed at all the questions lately asking atheists to please provide the evidence for the non-existence of God (and especially those that specify that “lack of evidence for the existence of God” doesn’t count). I mean, sure, these are obvious attempts to shift the burden of proof from the person making the claim (“God exists”) to the person expressing disbelief in that claim, but that’s not what I find so annoying.
No, what annoys me is the assumption (stated or unstated) that a lack of expected evidence is somehow not sufficient to establish the non-existence of something and that in order for a claim of non-existence to be justified there must be some sort of independent evidence for that thing’s lack of existence. And the reason this annoys me so much is because (a) this same standard is not typically required by anybody when it comes to anything apart from God and (b) IT MAKE NO SENSE WHATSOEVER!!!
SIGH
If I say I have an elephant in my garage and demand you prove that this elephant doesn’t exist, you can look in my garage and observe that there is no evidence whatsoever of that elephant. No large gray beast in sight, no distinctly elephant-y smell, no pile of hay or mounds of excrement, nothing. Presumably, this would be sufficient evidence to you that the elephant I claim is currently residing in my garage does not, in fact, exist, would it not? And would it matter if I said that a lack of evidence for the elephant’s existence doesn’t count and that you must instead provide some other independent, positive evidence for the non-existence of my elephant? Of course not, because THAT MAKES NO SENSE WHATSOEVER!!!
If I say that an evil race of shape-shifting reptilian aliens are replacing celebrities and world leaders in a prelude to invading our world, the fact that I have zero credible evidence to back up my claim would make you feel justified in not believing me, don’t you think? And would it matter if I said that a lack of evidence for the existence of these shape-shifting reptilian aliens doesn’t count and that you must instead provide some other independent, positive evidence for the non-existence of these aliens and their nefarious plot to conquer the world? Of course not, because THAT MAKES NO SENSE WHATSOEVER!!!
For that matter, a hole in the ground is all the evidence anybody needs in order to believe that the dirt that used to be in that hole is no longer there. A hole is a “lack of evidence” for dirt and there’s no way to have any other sort of “positive” evidence for the absence of dirt other than that hole. Looking at a hole and demanding that somebody provide additional evidence that there is no dirt in the hole MAKES NO SENSE WHATSOEVER!!!
Take any claim for which we should expect there to be some evidence to support it. Any claim at all. Whether it be elephants in the garage, aliens in the White House, the efficacy of homeopathic remedies, a promise by somebody who says he is a Nigerian prince that he will pay you millions of dollars if you will give him some money up front, or that there exists an intelligent being composed of "pure spirit" (whatever the heck that means) which exists outside of time and space (whatever the heck that means) while somehow still being capable of interacting with the material world and which purportedly cares deeply about every individual member of one particular species living on one particular world orbiting one particular star among billions in one particular galaxy among countless trillions of similar galaxies in this entire vast universe, it doesn’t matter. If there is no evidence to support that claim when there should be such evidence*, then that is all the evidence that is required to justify a lack of belief in that claim and asking for additional evidence that the thing in question doesn’t exist MAKES NO SENSE WHATSOEVER!!!
Now, reasonable people can certainly disagree on what actually constitutes “evidence” of God in the first place. While some theists are more than happy to acknowledge the lack of any evidence (since the most important thing is to have “faith”), other theists insist that the evidence of God’s existence is all around us in the beauty of sunsets and rainbows, in the apparent orderly design of nature, in our DNA and our consciousness (not to mention things like anecdotal stories of miracles, the very existence of various holy books and the supposed truths contained therein, etc.). And atheists, of course, just point out that none of those supposed evidence for the existence of God are actually “evidence” in the first place since they are either not reproducible, not verifiable and/or nothing more that arguments from ignorance (“You can’t explain it so it must be due to the particular God I happen to worship!”) As a result, it is possible to have a meaningful debate on whether there actually is evidence for God’s existence or not. But when somebody argues that there is no evidence for the existence of God, demanding that this person somehow provide independent evidence for the non-existence of God —
[Say it with me now…]
MAKES NO SENSE WHATSOEVER!!!
- I know that one favorite tactic theists use when atheists point out that there is no evidence for the existence of any gods is to claim that God is some sort of amorphous, undetectable, ineffable, and wholly unknowable and incomprehensible being that exists outside of time and space and the very laws of this universe, and therefore there really shouldn’t be any sort of evidence for God’s existence. If this were actually the case, however, there would be no way for these very same theists to also claim to know what their god is like in the first place, let alone what their god has said and done and promised to do, what their god wants us to do (and not do) with our lives, what their god has in store for us in the afterlife, etc. You don’t get to claim to worship a god who has said and done and promised to do very specific things and then, when asked to provide any evidence of that god, suddenly claim that it’s impossible to know anything about that god.