They tell me that the evidence for god is overwhelming - and the moment I hear that expression I know that the last thing I am going to hear from them is any actual evidence whatsoever.
- the evidence of the bible
- the evidence of the resurrection
- the evidence of irreducible complexity
- the evidence of fine tuning
- etc etc
- After all, the bible is not even self-consistent and any decent lawyer would quickly show it to be worth nothing as evidence in a court of law.
- The resurrection is only evidence for anyone if you believe in the word of the bible. See item 1.
- Irreducible complexity is only evidence of the logical fallacy of 'the argument from personal incredulity'.
- Fine tuning arguments betray some of the features of item 3, but also demonstrate a complete misunderstanding of the laws of probability when they are used retrospectively.
The concept of the double-blind test is one where neither the person carrying out the experiment nor the subject of the experiment knows whether they are participating in the real trial or the placebo control. This idea can be extended in inventive ways to determine whether there really is good evidence for an hypothesis, even in cases where you might think it is difficult.
Controlled experiments have been carried out over the decades to determine whether prayer works. I suppose you could claim that these tests are not truly blinded tests though. Surely omnipotent god must know that he is being tested. Perhaps these trials show only that god does not like to be tested - and hence he fails to answer the prayers while someone is watching. However, that is not the sort of behaviour that you would like to see from a loving god is it?
So - I challenge you religious apologists to provide some of this overwhelming evidence that you claim to have for the existence of your god.
I'm waiting . . . .