You're using some twists of logic to make it sound as though "know" and "believe" are the same thing. You suggest "knowing" there is no God in the same sense that you "know" an event which has occurred, and been observed to occur, steadily for millenia.
You have ample evidence that the sun will rise tomorrow. You have no evidence that there is, or is not, a god. Atheism requires a belief-without-facts, just as religion does. You can make logical conclusions based upon what you think you know about the way the universe works, and you're probably right.
Quote:
|
"Every single time my hypothesis 'There is no God' has made a prediction on the outcome of something, it has been correct"
|
It is this statement that I think is incorrect. How do you scientifically test a hypothesis that something does not exist? It's not possible, as you pointed out earlier. You can prove that something does not exist in a certain location - "I assembled a team to do a blanket search of all of Central Park and found no green swans, therefore a green swan does not exist in Central Park," and you can even theoretically do it with much effort and a whole lot of people for the entire planet. But you can't prove that there isn't a green swan swimming in a methane pool on some distant planet in Alpha Centauri.
Additionally, your proposal - that we inductively reason there is no God because our hypothesis is proven correct, assumes the hypothesis makes sense in the first place. The hypothesis must, if we follow most religions, read something like "It is absolutely impossible that there is an invisible, undetectable, all powerful being who today leaves no evidence of his existence, and who's only recorded interaction with mankind happened over 2,000 years ago when recordkeeping was suspect at best."
The very nature of such a hypothesis makes it completely impossible to test scientifically. If something is undetectable, then claiming it doesn't exist simply because you can't detect it is bad science.
At any rate, at the end of the day there is alot more evidence pointing to the certainty of the sun rising than there is pointing to the certainty of the lack of a supernatural omnipotent invisible being.