The Burden of Proof

BBC1 aired Big Questions this morning. The topic was just one question: Is there any evidence for God? It was the usual bunfight and, as I so often note in situations like this, the believers weren't doing very well.

I noted with some distaste the rather catty remarks made by a few arrogant atheists. It was upsetting particularly because in their need to show how clever they were being they came across as rather desperate, and I knew in my heart that I had been exactly like that in the past. Smug and desperate.

The programme finished with no firm conclusions made, and of course no conclusion could be made. But certainly the impression was 'No'.

There is no evidence that God exists.
I was rather sad: it seems that believers must defend their position at all costs, and if evidence is required they will fail.

All of this has got my mind whirring. What happens when we turn the situation around, ask the opposing question: Is there any evidence for the non-existence of God?

I believe that the answer to this question too is 'No'.

There is no evidence that God does not exist.

The theist/atheist debate is never won by arguing whose position is correct, it's more about who is given the burden of proof. Certainly it can reasonably be argued that Creationism is unscientific; that the Bible contains some seeming inconsistencies; that all religions claim absolute truth while disagreeing over details. Yet none of these reasonable arguments go anywhere towards proving that God does not exist. Just that most, if not all, humans have got it wrong (either in part or wholly).

So let's try to approach this logically:

If there is no evidence that God exists and there is no evidence that God does not exist then the argument is rather pointless.

With this in mind the most logical position is that of the agnostic - the world of I don't know. If an agnostic then has some kind of supernatural encounter they may choose to take this as evidence of a supreme being and become a believer, or they may regard it as a dream or hallucination and continue to be an agnostic. Either of these positions could be seen as pretty logical.

At no point is it logical to take the atheist perspective because unless we know everything about everywhere, we cannot know for certain that there is no God.

To all atheists out there: sorry about that.