Evidence and God

It is sometimes argued that God is an unnecessary explanatory hypothesis. To postulate the existence of God is to claim that there is a necessary, omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent being which is the explanation for the existence of the universe, and the most general features of our experience. But it seems that the normal methods of scientific investigation will be able to tell us everything one could ever want to know about the cosmos. In ancient times, it was common to posit gods, ghosts and demons to explain lightning, disease, and changing seasons. The Egyptians postulated Ra's journey across the sky to the underworld to explain night and day—but now that humans have demonstrable scientific and natural explanations there is no good reason to believe that Ra is responsible for darkening of the sky every afternoon. (Book of the Dead, 17a3 [Allen]) The seer Amos said that his God, "creates the wind, reveals thoughts to mankind, turns dawn to darkness, and treads on the heights of the earth." (Amos 4:13) But humans are able to peer past the clouds into the stars, and God does not tread there. Dawn turns to darkness because of the orbit of the earth around the sun, and the wind is caused by the rotation of the earth. Amos did not know any of these scientific explanations for the world he experienced. Inwagen (2005) calls this the “Superfluidity Argument” and summarizes it as follows: 

“The only reason we could have for believing in God would be that it was necessary to postulate his existence to account for some observed fact or facts. But science can explain everything we observe, and its explanations do not appeal to God or to any other supernatural agency. Hence, there is no reason to believe that God exists. That is to say, the existence of God is an unnecessary hypothesis.” 

God should not be postulated as the explanation for some specific physical phenomenon, such as lightning or rain. These kinds of specific phenomena are accessible to scientific investigation and testing. In such cases, it would be perfectly valid to say, 

‘In due time we will have a scientific explanation of such and such phenomena.’ 

But it would be very out of place to say,

‘Since we have no scientific explanation, a divine miracle must be the explanation, God did it!’ 

Therefore, the kind of thing which would be evidence for God against naturalism would have to be something that is beyond the scope of scientific or abductive means of explanation. It would also have to be something which is expected on the hypothesis that there is a God, but would not be expected if naturalism were true. The general theistic arguments appeal to the following phenomena as data which raises the probability of theism or necessitates the existence of a maximally great being (MGB). 

i. The existence of a complex physical universe. 

ii. The conformity of the universe to regular physical laws. 

iii. The life-permitting nature of these laws. 

iv. The existence of humanlike creatures. 

v. That humans have souls with mental states connected to brains. 

vi. That humans have moral awareness. 

vii. That humans have free will and can make significant choices. 

viii. The testimony of many witnesses to religious experiences and miracles.

ix. The apparent design in nature. 

The general atheistic arguments appeal to the following data as lowering the probability of theism, or as being incompatible with the existence of an MGB.

. 

i. The prevalence of suffering and evil in the world amond human beings. 

ii. The apparent meaninglessness and gratuitousness of most suffering.

iii. The hiddenness of God, his lack of perceptible interaction with the world. 

iv. The absence of verifiable public miracles.  

v. The widespread religious confusion and conflict in the world.

vi. The existence of non-resistant unbelievers, i.e. those who are open to a relationship with God and yet God does not reveal himself to them. 

vii. The prevalence of suffering of animals. 

viii. The contradictory nature of religious experiences and miracles.

ix. The errancy of popular holy books.

There is an inherent simplicity which favors naturalism over theism. The naturalist believes the only world that exists is the one which we readily and directly experience, the world of matter and energy which we see around us. This is a very simple model of reality. The theist, in contrast, posits another realm of existence, of spirits, angels, demons, and a transcendent God. One model is simpler than another if it posits fewer substances, fewer kinds of substances, with simpler properties (i.e. properties that can be expressed in mathematically simple ways). Therefore, a good theistic argument should appeal to some phenomenon which cannot be explained naturally and could plausibly be explained by positing a personal explanation beyond the natural world.