Nothing can ever count as evidence for God or against atheism in the mind of the atheist. I established this last time I was posting here. The skeptical mind forces itself into a corner which eventually, through constant use in a skeptical mode, tricks the user into thinking he/she is making some big gain of insight but he/she is actually closing off the ability to take the necessary risks to step beyond that which is proven and extrapolate to a position of belief.
I am not saying all atheists always think this way. I'm just saying these tendencies that are brought by the skeptical habit of mind.
(1) the mentality to dobut as long as possible.
If any kind of doubt is possible, however slight the probability, the atheist must take it.
(2) Unless something is totally proven it cannot be given any kind of presumption no matter how rationally warranted or how strongly evidenced.
If God is not 100% proven God is 0% proven and though one may consider God 99% proven if it is not 100% then its nothing.
(3) The "no evidence" circle.
this is a form of question begging/circular reasoning that works like this
*there is no evidence for the existence of God because God is not absoltuely proven.
*Since there is no evidence there can be no evidence
*since there can be no evidence than anything presented as evidence must be wrong.
these are all just a large circle of reasoning based upon the false premise in no 1. There are probably corresponding problems that the faith habit of mind produces. But what this mens is that atheism is unverifiable/falsifiable. It's not an analytical position because it's not open proof or disproof.
This applies especially to atheist on message boards. I think atheist seek to gain preferences for their view. the dictum about extraordinary evidence proves this. why should religious experience be deemed "extraordinary?" when it includes 90% of the people in the world.? the assumption is that their assumptions should be the "default." That's why they are always trying to claim mass populations they are not intitleed to, like Buddhism or all new born babies.
The better paradigm would be:
(1) doubt as long as you have real doubts and be willing to assign prima facie to good arguments.
(2) rational warrant.
rational warrant is about all any world view can offer. belief in God is a world view. there is no reason to islaote it form other views or set the bar any higher for it than for any of them.
This is only to rich. I put this put on CARM atheist board. And this atheist is going to show me what's wrong with it. here are his responses:
*there is no evidence for the existence of God because we've for naturalistic explanations for almost everything we've ever studied.
*If the God hypothesis were correct, we'd have found evidence for it by now.
*Since there is no evidence yet, we can feel comfortable in assuming tentatively that there is no God. Taking this assumption will put us in a position where atheism may disproved by contradiction.
Is it possible to saything that would more clearly illustrate the points I just made?