Big fan of Carl Sagan, he was like a father figure to me, I’m partially molded by him.
That said, something he used to say all the time really baffled me, still does:
“Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”
He said this when talking about aliens.
However: Sagan was a famous non believer.
How does this aphorism reconcile with the existence or non existence of a god?
If “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” does that apply to a god as well?
Is there a god even though there is no evidence of him/her/it?
In: 95
Carl Sagan’s aphorism applies to any situation where evidence is lacking. It simply means that just because we don’t have evidence of something doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist. In the case of a god, this aphorism can be interpreted to mean that just because we don’t have evidence of a god doesn’t mean that one doesn’t exist. Sagan was a non-believer, but he still acknowledged that it was possible for a god to exist even though there is no evidence to support it.
because mysticism and science don’t exist.
there’s nothing mystical at all about the idea of aliens existing. *we* exist and the universe is enormous. it’s very very logical to surmise we aren’t alone.
on the other hand, there’s no logic whatsoever in saying that just because we can’t see a mystical being it could still exist. nothing in science and in our observations can even remotely be extended to draw the conclusion that a conscious entity could exist which could not only influence but even create a whole universe, as well as give attention to us or even a select group of us specifically. such lines of thinking have no place in scientific discussion
Precisely the reason I’m an agnostic. There’s a chance that there is a God. It may be an incredibly unlikely chance; but there is a chance.
Carl Sagan’s aphorism applies to any situation where evidence is lacking. It simply means that just because we don’t have evidence of something doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist. In the case of a god, this aphorism can be interpreted to mean that just because we don’t have evidence of a god doesn’t mean that one doesn’t exist. Sagan was a non-believer, but he still acknowledged that it was possible for a god to exist even though there is no evidence to support it.
As an agnostic scientist: I’m agnostic because the scientific method works on things being disprovable. There is no evidence, IMO, that God exists – but likewise I can’t disprove that He does in some form. So I can’t, as a reasonable scientist, insist that there is no God. But I CAN demonstrate that the Bible is wrong about certain things (Noah’s flood, Evolution, etc).
So in my view, you have three options: (1) Believe in God as long as your beliefs don’t conflict with science. (2) Decide not to believe in God, since there’s no good proof either way. (3) Be Agnostic, where you kind of decide to sit on the fence of uncertainty and be okay with that.
As an agnostic scientist: I’m agnostic because the scientific method works on things being disprovable. There is no evidence, IMO, that God exists – but likewise I can’t disprove that He does in some form. So I can’t, as a reasonable scientist, insist that there is no God. But I CAN demonstrate that the Bible is wrong about certain things (Noah’s flood, Evolution, etc).
So in my view, you have three options: (1) Believe in God as long as your beliefs don’t conflict with science. (2) Decide not to believe in God, since there’s no good proof either way. (3) Be Agnostic, where you kind of decide to sit on the fence of uncertainty and be okay with that.
As an agnostic scientist: I’m agnostic because the scientific method works on things being disprovable. There is no evidence, IMO, that God exists – but likewise I can’t disprove that He does in some form. So I can’t, as a reasonable scientist, insist that there is no God. But I CAN demonstrate that the Bible is wrong about certain things (Noah’s flood, Evolution, etc).
So in my view, you have three options: (1) Believe in God as long as your beliefs don’t conflict with science. (2) Decide not to believe in God, since there’s no good proof either way. (3) Be Agnostic, where you kind of decide to sit on the fence of uncertainty and be okay with that.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence – aliens could exist. In the case of aliens, we can think of all kinds of excellent explanations why we haven’t found any evidence for them.
In the case of a deity, I cannot think of any good explanations for the lack of evidence. Not even one.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence – aliens could exist. In the case of aliens, we can think of all kinds of excellent explanations why we haven’t found any evidence for them.
In the case of a deity, I cannot think of any good explanations for the lack of evidence. Not even one.
dude was just pushing science.. you can’t make a claim without evidence.
i’d say an good addendum to that concept would be “great claims require great evidence” and so in the context of god, you would need some insane proof or reason to think we were put here by a man in a cloud and that one day we will roam golden streets and have 72 virgins to fuck whenever we want(bible is bible to me). the claim that aliens could exist is pretty easy to prove in that you can just look at the size of the universe and point to the possibility that other life would be so .. alien.. that we would not recognize it. again not proof of anything, but it puts your assumptions in check.
Latest Answers