Just swap God for the Big Bang and use the same rationalizations. It really torques them. "Yeah, well, observable space can have particles appear and disappear, therefore by transitive properties of my ass, it means the Big Bang happened" or "microwave telescopes can see the afterimage of the Big Bang even though that is only an assumption, not a proof". They really get bent when you tell them their suppositions and assumed science is no better than intelligent design theory.
And if you really run it down by the mathematical odds of life even happening in the first place considering the geological history of the Earth than it would lend itself more towards a higher power creating life than life just "happening just because of reasons".
Then there is consciousness. There is no evolutionary need whatsoever for consciousness. At all, period. Yet we have it.
Im pro-God, but the general argument is not what you proposed. In fact, the general argument not even really an argument. It's more of a disengagement from entertaining the idea all together. That is to say, those who believe in God are expected to prove that He exists because it is impossible to prove that something does NOT exist.
from wikipedia: "The difference with a positive claim is that it takes only a single example to demonstrate such a positive assertion ("there is a chair in this room," requires pointing to a single chair), while the inability to give examples demonstrates that the speaker has not yet found or noticed examples rather than demonstrates that no examples exist"
Just swap God for the Big Bang and use the same rationalizations. It really torques them. "Yeah, well, observable space can have particles appear and disappear, therefore by transitive properties of my ass, it means the Big Bang happened" or "microwave telescopes can see the afterimage of the Big Bang even though that is only an assumption, not a proof". They really get bent when you tell them their suppositions and assumed science is no better than intelligent design theory.
And if you really run it down by the mathematical odds of life even happening in the first place considering the geological history of the Earth than it would lend itself more towards a higher power creating life than life just "happening just because of reasons".
Then there is consciousness. There is no evolutionary need whatsoever for consciousness. At all, period. Yet we have it.
Besides, we can't even measure one of the nearest stars, Polaris, accurately.
Several satellites. Several measurements. Something like 330 to 450 (not looking up please check yourself but I should be close) ly away.
That's a huge margin of error. In. Our. Own. Neighborhood. 450 by is a fucking large magnitude over 350ly star 😎🙈🙊🙉
There's no proof for gender. FTFY
As for the argument that "a God doesn't exist because we have no evidence", that's no different than ESL. No evidence.
Fermi's Paradox > Drake's Equation
Im pro-God, but the general argument is not what you proposed. In fact, the general argument not even really an argument. It's more of a disengagement from entertaining the idea all together. That is to say, those who believe in God are expected to prove that He exists because it is impossible to prove that something does NOT exist.
from wikipedia: "The difference with a positive claim is that it takes only a single example to demonstrate such a positive assertion ("there is a chair in this room," requires pointing to a single chair), while the inability to give examples demonstrates that the speaker has not yet found or noticed examples rather than demonstrates that no examples exist"
Religious debate logical fallacies:
Faithful: a lack of an explanation defaults to the existence of God.
Example: How do you explain (something not explained by science)? See? That's God!
Atheist: A lack of evidence means a lack of existence.
Example: There is absolutely no evidence that a giant squid exists. It's a fairy tale. (50 years later) of course the giant squid exists!
Those examples are apologetics, not respective of their fields.
Those examples are probably not the best, but VERY common. Hard atheists tend to claim that because there's little proof, they KNOW there is no God.
A person of faith will commonly ask for an explanation of phenomena, then use the lack of an explanation as a persuasive argument.
how high are you
Too bad a Christian didn't create the scientific method. Oh wait.