There is no evidence for gods. That's all.
Sure there is. You just will not accept empirical evidence as valid…
Now consider what is empirical evidence…Empirical = based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic; originating in or based on observation or experience; relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory ; capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment.
Now no one can “prove” there is a God, gods, or anything outside of the natural order by merely natural means, again THAT”S ABSURD to even imagine such a thing….
So no one can “prove” by your limited definition of proof that there is a God but that however does not mean there is not evidence for such a being…
All we absolutely know for sure (scientifically speaking) is NO ONE can “prove” by any means (empirical or purely material) that there IS NO GOD…I am sure you agree with that (I hope)
Now listen carefully…because millions throughout the ages have personally experienced God (as well as other phenomena outside of what YOU would call the natural order), observed the effects of such a being, tested what He has claimed and found it to be true…(regardless of whether or not you have)! This historically verifiable fact alone (not even considering other things like the purely prescient nature of Biblical prophecy, and other matters) IS empirical evidence that there is a God…
Any open minded objective person with a shred of intellectual integrity cannot dismiss the mountain of empirical evidence and then accept and live by premises for which there is none and truly be a rational person…
I know you can rationalize, that’s not what I am saying, I am saying you accept a number of premises without a single shred of evidence they are true yet reject many for which there is evidence they are true…
Let me pose a scenario to you (all this by the way is to help you learn to actually use critical thinking not ever thinking up new criticisms, there is a stark difference)
All of science (and I KNOW this is a fact) and ALL scientists only experience, have ONLY observed, can ONLY demonstrate, and ALL tests done or devised ONLY show that life comes from previous life…
Evolutionary Biologists, Vance and Miller, in their book, Biology for You (Philadelphia, Lippincott, l963), admit that, “All the forms of plants and animals that we have studied in biology, produce their young from their own bodies, and in no other way“. Did you hear that? They said, “in no other way“!
The contemporary Encyclopedia Americana (Grolier, Scholastic, 2000) says, “Biologists are now not only in virtual unanimous agreement that all life derives from preceding life, but that the parent organism and it’s offspring are of the same kind“.
From this smattering of scientific testimony, a definite conclusion comes to light! Contrary to the popularized, politicized, neo-Darwinian dogma… within a given phyla, members only reproduce other members of the same phyla from relations with members of their own phyla! There simply are no biological examples of Darwin’s poly-phyletic morphism anywhere in the world after almost 200 years of alleged scientific consideration and 100 years of collecting fossilized examples. Never experienced, never observed, never demonstrated, and ALL tests refuting it…yet sold and imposed on innocently inquiring minds through drill and repetition that it is an established fact…
When Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s propaganda Minister, once said, “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State (or in this case the educational neo-Darwinian pedagogues) can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the (these power mongers) to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy …”
This is the case here…for if life ONLY comes from previous life then there was a life (a force; a quality of reality) that precedes what we know of as bios/life here on earth. In is an undeniable conclusion which MUST BE repressed and disallowed from the public awareness or else the whole neo-Darwinian house of cards falls…if life did not eventually evolve from non-living matter, then there is no basis for the neo-Darwinian concept of life (as a purely randomly occurring chemical accident).
Now I have presented a logical, scientifically supportable, argument here…
Therefore, it IS REASONABLE to assume (if one has not had the pleasure of the experienced observeable and testable premise) there may be a God(s) because empirical evidence is in fact the #1 BEST quality of evidence one can obtain…all else is only commentary. And it is equally NOT REASONABLE to assume something to be true that utterly lacks empirical evidence and all tests fail to demonstrate (in fact outright negate)…
Re-read this and think on it a bit. Use your reasoning capability because true critical thinking skills must take into account ALL data, not rejecting the inconvenient or contrary, and shape the hypothesis or “theory” (even by scientific definition) according to the data we actually know or can demonstrate.
Ever thinking up new criticisms in response to something we do not want to believe is not being honest with the evidence (thus closed minded as one who does not agree could rightly accuse YECs)