Evidence for the existence of God

[Esquilax]

---

I think we're dancing around the real issue here, though, which is that your god cannot supply that sort of evidence.

We're not dancing around the issue. We're discussing what would it take for atheists to be convinced.

And I'm telling you that the god you believe in could not provide that. The first hurdle is that you'd have to show how all the things that contradict your god in reality are somehow wrong, and you're simply not up to that.

Please elucidate your meaning of "well supported and verifiable calculations" by providing examples.

Well, okay: when you say that a thing is the best explanation for something, you're asserting a calculation of probability, in which that thing has the highest such probability. Given that, you'd need an actual means of doing this. So if you want to say that god is the best explanation for the universe, you don't just get to skip all the steps that theists always do with their apologetic arguments: you have to begin by demonstrating that a god is even possible, and work up from there. You don't just get to vomit some waffle about first causes and stop there.

If you want to say god is the best explanation, that necessarily implies that he's A: an explanation for the phenomena under discussion, and B: has the highest probability of being the explanation given the current evidence. Without observations of such a being and a demonstrable understanding of the conditions it operates within, no such probability can be attained. If you have observations of god and a solid understanding of his underlying conditions and abilities, then that's where you start. But you've already excluded those sorts of evidence.