Science Avenger has a great post responding to an apparently Christian commenter, on the topic of why Christianity should or should not be given special considerations relative to the evidence. I’m going to add it to the Recommended Reading list, but I also want to take the time to address one of the commenter’s claims, as it reflects a common misconception. The commenter said:
“Would you accept this ‘statement of scientific truth’? If God does not exist, it is impossible to scientifically prove this lack of existence.”
On the contrary, we can know, beyond a reasonable doubt, that God, as described by Christianity, does not exist.
Once again, all we need to do is to look at the principle that truth is consistent with itself, and therefore whatever is not consistent with itself, or with real-world truth, is not true. Christians describe God as a divine being, all-powerful, all-wise, all-loving, and all-knowing, Who has a desire to be with us forever–a desire so strong that He was willing (and able) to become human Himself, to walk among us, to die for us and to raise Himself from the dead. If such a God existed, however, there would be a number of immediately verifiable consequences of His abilities and desires. The most fundamental and obvious of these is that, having died and risen again to remove the barriers that separate us from Himself, He would now be here with us, and would abide here with us forever, in real life, in the real world.
It is universally true, however, that God does not show up in real life, not for saints, not for seekers, not for sinners. God, as described by Christians, fails to be consistent with real-world truth and/or with Himself, for He does not show up, which means one must either contradict His willingness to be here with us or one must contradict His ability to be here with us. These contradictions are irresolvable, and thus we can know that the Christian God, as described by Christians, is a non-truth.