If an atheist says "give me evidence for God" ... yet is a scientific naturalist, he's essencially assuming t hat no evidence is possible.
Scientific naturalism is the assumption that all phenomenon have a natural explination, that either we know or that we will know .... if you're a scientific naturalist (as many atheists are), NO evidence COULD exist for a God, because any evidence that MIGHT exist MUST be explained naturally, and if you can't explain it naturally, then there must be a natural explination that we just don't know.
You're essencially saying "show me evidence for God, but anything you show me will always have a natural explination whether we know it or not."
That's Inaccurate and illogical.
You're trying to paint science as just another baseLess belief system and say any superstitious take is just as good.
In furtherance of this you Abuse the word 'evidence'.
ie, evolution has the 'evidence' of Millions of Fossils gathered of 150 years (for just one branch of evidence).
My oft linked Sciam: "15 answers to creationist nonsense":
"...For instance, evolution implies that between the earliest-known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 100,000 years ago), one should find a succession of hominid creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil record shows. But one should not--and does not--find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (144 million years ago). Evolutionary biology routinely makes predictions far more refined and precise than this, and researchers test them constantly.
Evolution could be disproved in other ways, too. If we could document the spontaneous generation of just one complex life-form from inanimate matter, then at least a few creatures seen in the fossil record might have originated this way. If superintelligent aliens appeared and claimed credit for creating life on earth (or even particular species), the purely evolutionary explanation would be cast in doubt. But no one has yet produced such Evidence.".."
All previous gods that were ignorantly assumed as explanations of natural phenomenon on which history has a verdict, have turned out to be bogus for the same reason.
That reason being people just made up/assumed a god because they didn't know... yet.
You would have made your same argument for the Fire, Lightning, Rain, gods.
Is rain 'evidence' of a god?
And of course, rather than a single real explanation, we Don't just have One geographic group Making Up one baseless explanation/god, we have many false ie, creation Myths.
So that even IF one was right everyone else's 'god' would be wrong.
Is your god any better than the Northwest Native Bear creationism?
Only science does have evidentiary explanations.
But I certainly Would accept evidence of a god.
If, for example, when I looked up every/Any night and the visible stars (how about some shiny/extra-bright/same-magnitgude new ones btw) clearly spelled 'Allah' in Arabic, that would be evidence!
Of course, that would Not be good news for Christians and Hindus, etc.
God has but to lift a tiny finger to prove he exists, (for another example) just speak to the whole planet from the sky any night.
Hasn't happened.
hfd said:
Not much activity here. The reason, I suspect, is that your contention is solid.
You suspected wrong, as usual.
Classic, as a good explanation/debunking was in fact cominbg.