At UD, Eric Anderson has a new OP entitled
It’s the same argument we’ve heard so many times before. Here are a few excerpts:
Coyne’s thinks he finds “strong evidence for no God.” Yet his argument, when we cut through the clutter, is essentially as follows:
1. God, if He existed, would be like X.
2. Evidence shows God is not like X.
3. Therefore, God does not exist.
This exchange highlights the fact that the anti-religious zealot so often approaches the matter with a very concrete God in mind, a concept of how they think God should be (if only there were such a being). Then when the facts don’t seem to align with that superficial and hypothetical image they have created in their own minds, they proclaim that God must not exist.
No-one seems so cock-sure of exactly what God is like, exactly what God’s characteristics are, exactly how to understand God, than the anti-religious zealot. He is convinced he knows just how God is and how God should act in particular situations . . . if, of course, such a being existed.
None of this is correct, of course. As atheists, we don’t have any particular idea of what a nonexistent God must be like. Instead, we play Whack A Mole with whatever gods the theists come up with.
In his essay, Coyne was addressing the Abrahamic God worshipped by billions of people. You’ll hear this God described as omnipotent and perfectly loving, and Coyne, like many of us, sees belief in such a God as absurd. The world, and the Bible itself, are not compatible with such a view of God.
The problem is not with what atheists say about God. It’s what believers say about God that clashes with the evidence.
IDers, for all their bluster about “following the evidence where it leads”, are notoriously reluctant to do so when it comes to God.
Eric Anderson has swung and missed.