The Case for Atheism

[Raven]

In other words...you have an argument from ignorance? If god is an entity, why wouldn't one be able to find empirical evidence of him? Even if he were non-physical, the effects he has on the world would have to be physical.

Because God cannot be adequately defined in rational terms using rational language. It is an experience that cannot be communicated from one person to another. In terms of theoretical and conceptual reflection on the idea of God, I can endeavour to communicate my perception of what God might be by using reasoned language. I postulate that all of the genuine mystics (not the charlatans or corrupt governments) were experiencing the same force; they tried to make sense of it by using rational language, which ultimately comes across to intelligent people as incoherent, contradictory and irrational nonsense.

Ultimately, all atheistic rationalists on this forum will probably conclude that my position is based on: the argument from ignorance/God of the Gaps. The argument from ignorance is encapsulated within the philosophical framework of empiricism; there is a large emphasis on empirical evidence in order to fill the so-called "gaps". There is no standard scientific definition of what God is, so it makes no real sense to assume that the scientific method can comment on the God question. Without a conceptual definition of a hypothetical object, it is impossible to formulate hypotheses and predictions et cetera to test if the object is real.

You do realize that that is all a large helping of pseudo-intellectual gobbledegook? At least I hope that you do. That which is without evidence is not worth squat. I a super-being creator entity existed, there would be some kind of way to know this in such a way as could be measured. There is not, so belief in such a being makes no sense. Further, if he/she did exist, they are doing an terrible job of taking care of things, so why bother?