[Right Wing Professor]

Miracles don't leave traces, so science can't disprove the existence of any God, including one who created the world 6,000 years ago

Sure it can.

I'm not referring to a mathematical standard of proof here; just the same proof we'd use in a legal case or otherwise in everyday life: proof beyond reasonable doubt. I don't need purity - 99.44% will do fine.

In that case there is massive evidence from astronomy, geochemistry, biology, and so on that the earth is more than 6000 years old. In fact, only Omphalism could possibly reconcile the evidence with the science. Since reasonable people discard Omphalism, the earth is far older than 6000 years, beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the specific god that allegedly created the earth at that time is disproven. QED.

[Right Wing Professor]

In fact, only Omphalism could possibly reconcile the evidence with the science.

Should have been 'reconcile the evidence with that particular creation story'.

[puroresu]

We're at a stalemate on this one then, because God can do whatever He wants and we have no way of refuting it or tracing it. So nothing we can do, including 99.44%, is good enough.

Now, you may say that to a person of faith, God is an explanation that can be invoked for anything. That's true, but it's also true for happenstance.

Why does light behave as it does? A person of faith says it's because God made it to behave that way. An atheist says it just happens to behave that way.

God can do whatever He wants, however He wants, and leave no trace, or traces that we don't understand.

You don't believe that, and I understand that. I'm just noting that we come from two very different worldviews!

[grey_whiskers]

only Omphalism could possibly reconcile the evidence with the science.

You mean like rivers of chocolate?

...yes I know it's spelled differently.

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

I don't need purity - 99.44% will do fine.

Did you have to bring up that urban legend?

Cheers!