Why Does Atheism Have to be False?

[robvalue]

I covered this recently in another thread so I will quote myself. This kind of argument contains many logical fallacies, and if you are interested, I can help you see why. It is based off the argument from incredulity, "I can't imagine how else all this could have happened."

If anything is unclear, please ask. I have links in the post to my website explaining what the fallacies mean.

All of science has never so far indicated there ever was "nothing". So to be blunt, to state there once was "nothing" is to make a completely unfounded assumption that goes beyond all scientific knowledge. We simply don't know what happened before a certain point.

But even if there was a "cause" then

cause =/= sentient being =/= god =/= any particular god

[ =/= means is not equivalent to ]

That's 3 non sequiturs in a row following an argument from ignorance/incredulity from an unsupported assertion.

Logic is my only friend.

I agree that there isn't 100% scientific proof for god. I would go further, and say that there is 0%. There isn't even a coherent definition that could be tested for.