A Puzzle Most Atheists Cannot Solve About God And Science

 (All logical errors in this blog entry are highlighted in the colour red.)

MOST atheists you encounter online use the same tactic of cherry-picking when it comes to scientific evidence for God.

They use the propaganda that they are associated with science because there is no scientific evidence for God, and theists are just wishful thinkers that don't do science.

That is the pitch. (in red)

It is an implicit argument, it is insinuated/alluded to rather than explicitly argued.

Two errors used in this very popular sophistry are

Error 1. They have forgotten that science actually says nothing about God which means there is no evidence for or against so the words, "there is no evidence for God" is misleading terminology, because it makes it seem as though science is saying something about God, but in fact if science was making such as statement then it would follow that science investigates the supernatural, but it doesn't, so logically speaking there is no scientific evidence not because of a scientific investigation but because there is no investigation.

Think about it, they only observe methodological naturalism, so by analogy it is like saying, "there are no special meals of the day in this vegetarian restaurant for steak."

Yes, there aren't, because it's a vegetarian restaurant, so in the matter of serving steaks, this says nothing about steaks. You would have to go to a non-vegetarian restaurant if you're interested in steaks.

In the same way science can't give you any information about the supernatural either way, it can only say, "look somewhere else for those answers". 

Error 2. Association fallacy.

An association fallacy works two ways. 1. Associating someone with negative things. "guilt by association", such as linking modern Germans to nazis. 2. Associating with positive traits. "true, by association", like with linking yourselves with science and rationalism or with moral decency.

Atheists are enamoured with science and associate themselves with it by linking the fact there is no evidence for God in terms of scientific study, to their atheism, but they EXCLUDE the very thing which does not link atheism to science; the fact there is also no scientific evidence of God's absence.

Theism and atheism cannot be linked with science, because science simply says nothing about the supernatural either in the positive or negative, it simply doesn't investigate God. They just don't do it.

Therefore whatever you claim about atheism in regards to science, you can make the same claim as a theist.

So if atheists claim science is on their side because there is no evidence of God, theists can also say science is on their side because there is no evidence of His absence. Otherwise it is special pleading fallacy, because whatever pertains to one must pertain to the other.

There's no clever way around this, even if you say, "science also says nothing about the invisible pink unicorn".

Think about it, this would also be cherry-picking because what about all of the true things science will never uncover? You can't only compare God to false things science says nothing about,(begging the question fallacy) you also have to compare God to all the true things science can't say anything about. Otherwise you circularly ASSUME as one of your premises, that God is a false entity. 

So the theist can say the same thing about atheism; "science also doesn't say anything about the magical fairies, like it says nothing about magical naturalism having miraculous abilities such as with abiogenesis or maths arising by chance."

For example we exist as sentient beings, God might actually be equivalent more to us than an invisible unicorn, if in fact God is a sentient being also and is also real like us. (unlike the unicorn)

So if the atheist assumes God is equivalent to a unicorn we can also assume naturalism is equivalent to magic or other tales.

Atheists can't win this game, because the game they are playing is not valid meaning logical rules will always find them out. Doesn't matter what TRICK you try, the logic will always show that the theist can apply the same trick. 

There are true reasons to believe in God even though science doesn't deal with such claims. There is no universal law that states that something is only true if humans know about it in a strictly scientific capacity. That is actually logical positivism which could be argued to count as arguing from ignorance.