I am not picking on atheist here. I know thoughtful atheists exist. But it's just so apparent online that there is a HUGE contingent of atheists that present a case for atheism by saying, "there is no scientific evidence for God" and thereby making out that they the superior atheists, ACCEPT that which science says ONLY.
The problem with this very popular type of sophistry online (the whole, "show me evidence of God, science says there is none")is that a true understanding of what science actually says, undermines it.
The truth is this; if science said ANYTHING about God, in terms of evidence for or against, then God would be a matter of science.
ERGO, because science doesn't do the supernatural/God, you OMIT one part of the story if you declare, "there is no evidence for God".
There is also no evidence against God, otherwise science would be stating something about God.
The correct inference is that science simply says NOTHING about God.
Atheists also then back this up by requesting evidence of God.
But that is a contradiction. If science cannot do God like atheists say, then they can't also request evidence of God.
It is just as legitimate for a theist to request scientific evidence God doesn't exist, from an atheist.
CONCLUSION; This is all part and parcel of the whole FACADE of new atheism, which seeks to pretend that science is on it's side and a theist is just some chump out in the cold with nothing but "religious" belief to go on.
Not really.
The truth of the matter is that when it comes to theism/atheism, neither group can usurp the authority of science.
In terms of evidence, we can only really create semi-subjective arguments.
We can still create arguments for or against God, but the matter cannot technically be known in any scientific way.
I do know God. In one respect I "know" God is there. But not scientifically.
By analogy it is like the small percentage of innocent people now in prison. They can't prove scientifically they are innocent but they know they are.
™ Version 4.2