One sticking point in our arguments is the idea that evidence is required.
How do we gather evidence for God? The only evidence we have is that believers claim that God is evident. In other words, belief is our only evidence.
It technically isn't a 'sticking point'. The need for evidence is a common concept in any sort of cogent discussion.
Regarding god, there are actual experiments one can perform and many have been performed. Even if god might be not discernible, his effect should be something that is testable.
Consider the claims of prayer actually 'working'. This should be something that is testable. And experiments have been performed along those lines. You can read about those here:
Efficacy of prayer - Wikipedia
The conclusions that were drawn indicated "no discernible effect" on the efficacy of prayer.
Similar studies along the lines of 'Noetics', which has now been categorized as junk science, attempted to quantify the 'soul'. And these experiments yielded nothing as well.
And finally, consider one of the most common concepts, especially in Christian faith: miracles or miraculous claims. Once again, this is something that has a supposed affect on the surroundings or individuals. Yet once again, when experiments are created around these claims, they also yield no discernible results. This brings up one of the common thought points from non-believers: why won't god cure amputees? Many times in the medical field, when people recover from grave sickness or injury, it is considered a 'miracle'. Yet certain types of injury that is more absolute: a spinal injury or an amputation seem to never be cured. Why? The answer is simple: because miracles don't actually exist and the claims that the do always revolve around scenarios that could simply occur without divine intervention. Or are the result of medical science solving the problem.
™ Version 4.2
