Evidence for atheism

[Cyberman]

Christopher Hitchens. The aphorism is usually referred to as Hitchens' Razor.

[Madness20]

For sure there's alot of arbitrary definitions of god that might be refutable, but that doesn't mean that refutal of arbitrary definitions trully refutes the possibility of existence.
The thing is, there are very compelling sets of reasoning to believe on an eternal and creating existence that serves as a cosmological hypothesis to explain the universe. If our logic is absolute, then there's actually not really any other concievable definition of what created us. Personification of that structure, is a whole different plot and set of arguments that are obviously open to human subjectivity.

emphasis mine

Really? Let's hear those "compelling sets of reasoning," by which I think you might mean logical proofs, but who knows?

And what would make a "eternal and creating existence" (whatever that might be) relevant? Would presuming its eternal existence add to our understanding of how the universe works? Would this hypothesis have any predictive application? Or is it just another label to put on what we don't know?

There's several different arguments for the existence of a god, i myself have created a topic in religion section about some of my own beliefs few weeks ago, so i'm not exactly going to takeover this thread to talk about those beliefs.

But in sum, and allow me the analogy, God is like an unicorn: it could exist, it's viable, it'd be very reasonable to exist. We might refute that there are unicorns on Earth in the present, but we trully can't refute the existence of a unicorn because it's an entirelly believable possibility, we have several animals with horns, i see no big reason to refute the possibility that there might be unicorns horse somewhere, even on a parallel dimension.
The same as god, it's entirelly believable that there is eternity and something trully uncreated existing, i see no reason to believe otherwise in fact. That that thing might be a god or just the "universe" in it, it's open to interpretation, but there's trully no reason to object the possibility.

[FatAndFaithless]

God is like an unicorn: it could exist, it's viable, it'd be very reasonable to exist.

How exactly did you determine that a God is possible, viable, and reasonable?

Not to mention, comparing the existence of just an animal to something as complex and fundamental as a God and his role in the universe is a bit of a stretch.

[Madness20]

God is like an unicorn: it could exist, it's viable, it'd be very reasonable to exist.

How exactly did you determine that a God is possible, viable, and reasonable?

Not to mention, comparing the existence of just an animal to something as complex and fundamental as a God and his role in the universe is a bit of a stretch.

Well, be it god or the universe, you have somekind of unexplainable fundamental complexity nonetheless, and is almost logical necessity that something always existed in order to generate something, so the argument for complexity of the uncreated cause is not exactly strong.

[The Grand Nudger]

But in sum, and allow me the analogy, God is like an unicorn:

-agreed?

we trully can't refute the existence of a unicorn because it's an entirelly believable possibility, we have several animals with horns,

Actually, we can. "Animals with horns" does not equal unicorns, we have never found a unicorn, any mammal of that size -will- be noticed, and it -will- have a lineage (....and there are no lineages that even remotely suggest unicorns)

i see no big reason to refute the possibility that there might be unicorns horse somewhere, even on a parallel dimension.

You've left the field, perhaps there are unicorns in a "parrallel dimension" - not that you've demonstrated -any- understanding of what that term means, but feel free to go off on safari in your "parallel dimension" (remember to bring a virgin!), finding unicorns there will have nothing to do with whether or not unicorns exist here, the only place that matters when posing the question.

The same as god, it's entirelly believable that there is eternity and something trully uncreated existing,

See above, your example does not equal "god". Go on safari..again, perhaps in a "parallel dimension"...don't forget to write.

[FatAndFaithless]

Well, be it god or the universe, you have somekind of unexplainable fundamental complexity

Unexplainable fundamental comlpexity? What does that even mean? Besides, just because something is unexplained currently doesn't mean it's unexplainable, nor does it mean you can toss on some supernatural crap which is in and of itself, unexplainable.

and is almost logical necessity that something always existed in order to generate something

No, it's really not. Again, you don't get to toss in an eternal cause or creator just because it 'makes sense to you'. That's not how science works.

so the argument for complexity of the uncreated cause is not exactly strong.

Again, lots of words with a lot of baggage, might want to clarify exactly what you're trying to say here. If by "the complexity of the uncreated cause" you just mean the current state of our reality and how we perceive 'complexity' in nature, then you're out of rope. There's nothing but evidence for natural emergence of complexity, as nature is all we have the ability to measure. Again, you don't get to stick a god on top of everything. We have evidence of nature existing, and that nature has what we call complexity. There is absolutely nothing there to suggest a god or a creator.

[Minimalist]

that God brings disaster on those who continue in hard-hearted rebellion against Him.

Yeah? Well fuck him.

[FreeTony]

They define God in such a way that you can't even try to examine it, then complain that you have no evidence that it doesn't exist.

I can't prove that a kid doesn't have an invisible friend either. Most people grow out of the make-believe when quite young, yet others carry on and start using terms like supernatural/spiritual to justify their previous stupidity.

[The Grand Nudger]

Haven't seen a god yet which is immune to examination (or an imaginary friend).

[FatAndFaithless]

They define God in such a way that you can't even try to examine it, then complain that you have no evidence that it doesn't exist.

I can't prove that a kid doesn't have an invisible friend either. Most people grow out of the make-believe when quite young, yet others carry on and start using terms like supernatural/spiritual to justify their previous stupidity.

It reminds me of the tactic that some theists use where they paint science to be unreliable, uncertain, and constantly changing (that last one is a good thing by the way theists), but then fall over themselves to pounce on any shred of 'evidence' like a old piece of wood or carbon dating which uses the very science they've just tried to discredit.