Dear Grateful,

An evidence for the existence of God would be a disaster: it would spoil all faith, it would bring materialistic former-atheists to go through the motions of worshipping God only because they would treat Him as an ATM.

If I had such evidence (which I don't), then surely I would do everything in my power to conceal it.

Dear Grateful,

Mathematical theorems can be proven with a probability of 1 if every step in the logic can be justified. Scientific theorems about the behaviour of matter can never be proven with certainty. All we can say is that so far no evidence has turned up to disprove a theorem so we accept it provisionally. Newton's theory of gravity, published in 1687, had no evidence to disprove it until the twentieth century when Einstein's relativity modified it. Experimental evidence confirmed relativity. As to the existence of God there is absolutely no evidence to support its existence. Any evidence at all would cause me to rethink my atheism. Since there is no evidence but only religious belief which is not evidence there is no reason for me to be other than an atheist.

grateful,

How can it be that you understand what the null hypothesis is, yet simultaneously struggle to understand why disbelief is the default position?

<<Are you prepared to clarify your position relating to what constitutes sufficient evidence for rejecting the view that there is no god?>>

This is the Shifting of the Burden of Proof fallacy (http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof). The onus of proof is on the one making a claim, not the one rejecting it. Like I said earlier, scientists don’t accept claims until they’ve been disproved. The default position is always disbelief. The Philosophic burden of proof may help you to understand why (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof).

As for probability, I don’t know what field you’re in, but some of my qualifications lay in criminal psychology, and in psychology, probability is measured between 0 to 1. I’m not aware of probability being measured any other way, unless you are clumsily referring to Confidence Intervals.

<<Suppose the view that there is no god is our null hypothesis. Can an atheist state, following well-established scientific method, an acceptable probability of falsely rejecting the no-god hypothesis?>>

A more appropriate question would be, “What evidence would it take for you to believe in a god?” To which the next question would inevitably be, “Which god?”, or, “What kind of a god?” Because, if you’re going to claim that a carving in your back yard is your god, then I’d happily accept that that god exists, I’d just disagree with you that it’s a god.

Regardless, I don’t think any atheist could answer your question. Which is likely the reason WHY they are atheists, still sitting there at the default position of disbelief.

In responce to :
<<Are you prepared to clarify your position relating to what constitutes sufficient evidence for rejecting the view that there is no god?

Suppose the view that there is no god is our null hypothesis. Can an atheist state, following well-established scientific method, an acceptable probability of falsely rejecting the no-god hypothesis?>>

...two atheists have responded but neither has committed to a an acceptable probability for falsely rejecting the null hypothesis ---or to use AJ Phillips terms -- the "default position" of no god.

So how can you wonder why I take beleif as the default position.

For in asking this question, I am assuming disbelief as the default position and indeed asking for evidence of god. Yet despite taking the position atheists insist upon, at least two of them are not prepared to furnish us with a criteria for rejection of the notion that existence is a pure accident and has no purpose behind it.

This is an example of a belief based on faith (that there is no god) not rationality.

AJ: "Like I said earlier, scientists don’t accept claims until they’ve been disproved. The default position is always disbelief. "

Excuse me! the first sentence is non-sense; an attempt to evade a simple question.

The second presumes that it is is rational to disbelieve.

To have disbelief as the default position would require:

1) Believing that there is no consciousness that is not the by-product of material evolution. There is no free will as such

2) Believing that the laws of universe are an accident, the result of randomness: stable, persistent patterns, repeating themselves an uncountable number of times is an accident

grateful: To have disbelief as the default position would require:
1) Believing that there is no consciousness that is not the by-product of material evolution.

That's a nonsense statement. Consciousness "is" a result of Material Evolution.

grateful: There is no free will as such.

Yes there is, as a result of Material Evolution.

grateful: 2) Believing that the laws of universe are an accident, the result of randomness: stable, persistent patterns, repeating themselves an uncountable number of times is an accident.

Why not? Actually nobody knows if it is, "Random, Stable, Persistent Patten, etc. Each transition may be completely different. It may or may not involve life. "Well, not as we know it, Jim." I don't see what it would have to do with "A God." It would be just Randomness repeating itself every so many Hundred Billion Earth Years or so.

Maybe what is called "A God" IS just "Material Evolution" & some Humans have pushed their own spin on Nature in order to control other Humans & bend them to their Will, negating "Free Will."