The Case for Atheism

[Esquilax]

It's like this: if I have no evidence of a thing existing, and no indication that it even could exist, and every claim made about this thing comes loaded with fallacies and unfalsifiable attributes, and every test ever done on this claim returns no positive results, why would I continue to accept the possibility that such a thing exists until such time that I gain positive evidence for it?

You're attempting to shift the burden of proof, Frasier: we can both see that the natural world exists, and one doesn't need to fully seal off any possibility of supernature in order to conduct empirical research, but it's not up to anyone else to disprove the existence of the supernatural before we're justified in examining natural causes for things first. You'd need to provide evidence for the supernatural, given that it's the ontologically positive claim.

Now, this is where it gets hard, because how could that even be done? Just lacking a natural explanation for a phenomena isn't enough, that'd relegate your supernatural claim to being an argument from ignorance. Especially given the long track record we have for finding naturalistic explanations for previously unexplained phenomena, versus the nonexistent track record for discovering supernatural explanations for the same. Positive evidence is what's needed, causal links as opposed to just gaps in the knowledge plus correlation... and that's where the supernatural advocates fall mysteriously silent.

For example, on the last page you said it was unfair to compare the evidence for gravity with the evidence for god. Why? You bandied around accusations of presuppositions, but I can't help but notice you didn't even attempt to explain your proposed false analogy. What's the issue you were having?