What Is The Positive Evidence For Atheism?

Since my wife goes grocery shopping too, and likes different milk than I do, I can't possibly know what the "milk in my fridge" will be, if it's even there. It could be present as one of many different things. 2%. Skim. Whole with Vitamin D. Cotton-candy flavored. (We have access to weird milk around here.) I can hardly limit "milk" to one specific definition.And while the fridge represents a finite volume, it hardly represents a volume that I turn upside-down looking for milk. It's hardly necessary for me to check every single inch of the fridge to find some milk. A cursory examination of the places where milk should be, if there is some, is sufficient to justifiably conclude whether or not there is milk.Same with God. I hardly have to turn the universe upside down looking for God; I just have to look in the places God would have to be, if God existed. Easily for me, God is defined as being everywhere, so finding even one place where God is not disproves the existence of God. Nope. If something exists that can be called "God", then it would be every bit as detectable as the milk in my fridge. That which can exist without any trace or indication that it does so really can't be called a god in any coherent way.

In your view, Holmes, who has the right to demand that I substantiate my position?Why isn't it that person's obligation to provide the positive evidence for their belief that God exists? God is hardly a particle. In fact, it seems like the only time God is described in any terms besides how vast and large and omnipresent he is, is when believers are trying to convince us that God is so small and tiny that we'll simply overlook him if we're not careful.Convenient, that, that God seems to instantly deflate the instant someone looks at him hard. So long as the believers are willing to kill each other, and the rest of us, over their delusions, I don't think apathy is wise. There's a gigantic hole in the middle of Manhattan that testifies to the power of faith. I don't see that as something to be blase about.

Well, to be sure, I head out to the store well short of absolute certainty that there's no milk. Wow, I guess that's one more thing we take the exact opposite stance on. I think theists are good people with bad ideas, so I blame the ideas.

Sigh. Is it even possible for you not to be mendacious about even the little things?

Only if you think it's self-evident that God is beyond gross scientific analysis.I don't see any reason to believe that's true. I don't think the believers even really believe it. They certainly champion the results of any scientific study that seems to indicate God's existence, or the power of prayer, or whathaveyou; it's only in the face of all the disconfirming evidence that God suddenly, somehow, becomes beyond all reach of rational inquiry.

The same way any double-blind medical study is done. Separate the afflicted into two groups. Have a prayer group pray for the recovery of the individuals of one of the groups. Don't let either test group know which one is being prayed for (to eliminate placebo effect.) Treat them the same, otherwise.Either one group will recover statistically significantly faster than the other, or they won't.It's noteworthy that prayer never seems to pass this rigorous test. One of them has better arguments than the other. For instance, all the stuff that goes on that's inconsistent with the idea of a benevolent, powerful, interested deity. All the stuff that fails to happen. If this is a universe created by God to house the only living creatures he's really interested in, why is that universe so resolutely hostile to us, to life in general?I could go on, and Dawkins does, in his book. There's a lot of reasons not to believe in God that believers have never been able to address.

Sure. Let's take it one step further, though, and we'll keep the prayer group from knowing that they're part of a test. Would that satisfy your objection? Surely if they don't know it's as a part of some scientific test, their prayers will be sincere. But that's exactly what prayer is - a request for intercession. I mean, God wants us to pray for stuff, does he not? Surely it doesn't matter whether or not a guy with a lab coat had something to do with it?I don't think God hates science, if he exists. Why do you think he does? I don't know anybody who thinks so. "I saw a frozen waterfall and it convinced me of the historical accuracy of the Gospels" is not a compelling argument. Plenty of people are. But I don't think the world is a terrible place. It's just a lot worse than it would be if a benevolent, all-powerful deity was running things. Which means it's pretty obvious that that deity isn't running things. That's just what I'd expect from the no-god universe. From the universe with God? It falls well short. So why even have this at all, if it represents essentially a zero fraction of our infinite lives?

You've been shown that they aren't. Are you ever going to address those posts?

Nowhere to be found? I'm right here, posting in your thread. Is there some technical problem where you're not seeing my posts?Can somebody check on that? I have 10-20 posts in this thread, so it's somewhat strange to be accused of being "nowhere to be found.You know what I can't seem to find, though? Any place where CFO responds meaningfully to my rebuttals.

It's not just the first cause. Did you investigate their beliefs? They're crackpots, I agree, but as atheists who dispute evolution they're a counterexample to their claims. I'm not saying the vast majority aren't, so don't misrepresent me.It's just wrong to say that they all are.At any rate, I don't understand the significance of the claim. Sure, most atheists are evolutionists, because atheists are people who follow the evidence where it leads, and there's ample evidence for evolution and atheism. Most likely you'll find that atheists don't believe in Bigfoot, or in alien abductions, or the Loch Ness monster.Do you find that equally significant? Refute what? That atheists, as a whole, are more likely to accept scientific evidence than Christians? I already believe that.

When, specifically, did I say that? Yes. I need you to specifically post the messages where I said that evolution proves atheism, since I have no recollection of ever saying such a thing. I suspect a Christian could accept any theory they wanted to, since Christianity has never been an impediment to doing what someone really wanted to do. Yes, because they believe in God. They're right about evolution, though. So that's something. I don't need them. But it's ridiculous to act like they don't exist.

Please, it's not. "All" is not a synonym for "most."Really, you should know better than that.

Except that evolution didn't do it. Evolution doesn't do anything. Evolution is simply the description of how it was done. To say that "God did it" is to end the conversation. To say that evolution was the cause is to begin a conversation about how natural laws and phenomena gave rise to what we see before us.Johnathan Wells can't tell the difference between a nonsense explanation and an explanation that is actually meaningful and probative. Surely you don't suffer the same malady?

If God did do it, how did he do it? How does it tell us how to do it? If God created tuberculosis, how does that tell us how it's going to react to antibiotics? So you worship the god of ignorance. Well, that's good to know, anyway.