Probably. But there are still a lot of people I think I can reach with rational arguments: agnostics; believers who are not too sure; young people, especially college students who are learning to think critically and have not yet formed their views. Also I provide ammunition for those who think like I do to use in their arguments with believers.
Q. Science thrives on the parsimonious model. One shouldn't create something if it isn't needed to explain the phenomenon at hand. Hence if all 'natural' phenomena can be conceivably explained by variables at hand then why devise new ones. This, I believe, is one of the chief arguments that you try to make about absence of God. Can you expand a little more on this?
In an earlier book, Has Science Found God? I refute the claims that there is scientific evidence for God. In this book I go much further than just the absence of evidence argument that you reiterate in your question. I claim there is positive scientific evidence against the existence of the God most people worship, as in the absence of support for the efficacy of prayer that I mentioned earlier.
Q. It is a well-known scientific corollary that absence of proof is not proof of absence. The kinds of models that you describe in your book are really a probabilistic debunking that derive their strengths from 95% confidence intervals and unlikelihood of the hypothesis but not proof that it doesn't exist. Can you shed a bit more light on this?
The word "proof" has at least two different meanings. In logic and mathematics, a proof or disproof is with certainty given the starting assumptions. In science and law, proof means beyond a reasonable doubt. The latter allows one to conclude that
God can be "proved" not to exist if the data show this beyond a reasonable doubt.
Note I use "show" rather than "prove" in the subtitle to avoid that confusion.
Q. One of the arguments that is made by people who believe in God is that there must a reason to our existence. This is sort of an existentialist argument that says that we must have a cause behind our lives and only human lives, I may add. What do you think of this?
Article comments
1 - Kimberly
I have only read this article re: You.
I want to know if you could/would explain in "layman's" terms, " How do you explain Our Existence"?
How could the "big bang theory" be the complete explanation of our existence?? Who / What created the "gases" the "force" behind the "Bang"?? How could it all come from nowhere/nothing ? Why did "those" "ingredients" exist ? Why , How ??
I would appreciate your "opinion(s) !
And, please forgive my "less-than intelligent" wording of this !
Kimberly
in California