The argument we make is based on a simple concept. If god is completely a non-physical entity then how does he interact with the universe? How does he affect believers? How does he implement his magic? How do miracles function? Surely in the action of these events he has achieved physicality or at least disturbed the waters of reality sufficient for detection. I mean if he is affecting fairly grandiose changes in people then surely we should be able to detect that. We can detect a single particle but not the massive effect of a god?
But even as the atheist tries to make his point, he unwittingly falls into a trap: If his worldview were true, then the principle of non-contradiction – or any other rule of logic – would be void of meaning.Why? Because within atheism reality is ultimately composed of only matter and motion. If atheism is true, then everything in the universe must be explainable in terms of these two.Rules of logic, however, possess properties that cannot be explained in terms of matter and motion. After all, rules of logic are immaterial, abstract, universal and unchanging.
The rules of logic are determined by humans and are routinely refined as new concepts come up. Atheism is based on a simple concept. That no god exists because there is no evidence of him bar written texts from dubious sources. There is no repeatable empirical events. There are no gods, not Shiva, Jehovah or Allah.
Everything in the universe is a explainable through science. If not know, it will be. Just because we don’t know something now doesn’t mean we won’t later.
Many of the earliest scientists argued about the nature of light. How fast it was, people tried to measure the speed of light. They mostly got it as instantaneous, so many assumed it was, however a few smart souls realised that light had to have a speed, a very high speed that they couldn’t measure. They predicted other people would find out. They didn’t deem it to be the realm of god. They deemed it to be something for future generations to understand when the technology caught up.
The thing about gods is that they are always behind the next theory, the next great mystery and in the great unknown. They have to be hidden lest they be exposed to science and rationality.
I mean if “there is probably no gods and these 2000 year old books are wrong” is not rational but “doing specific things on specific positions of the earth to the sun so that you get a benefit of a non physical entity that likes it” is then frankly your definition of logic isn’t a very good definition at all.