Answering Barry Hampe on his 8 evidences against God

I saw this list on Quora, where he was giving a link to it. From another answer to a question. Here is the list:

So, on the atheist side, I [Barry Hampe] would list:

• The similarity of ancient folk tales about gods that have been adopted into various religions. This suggests that gods are a human invention.
• How some religions have fallen out of favor -- Greek, Roman, Norse, for example -- and are now called "myths," suggesting that current-day religions will likely experience the same fate. Why? Because they are stories with no basis in fact. They, too, are myths.
• The absolute lack of any convincing evidence that any gods exist now or ever have existed, suggesting (but not absolutely proving) that gods are fictional characters in human folklore, not supernatural agents.
• Absence of evidence that something exists, while not rising to the level of conclusive proof, is evidence of the absence of that thing. It's the standard we use for dragons, leprechauns, the Loch Ness monster, the yeti, and the monster under the bed. Therefore it is the standard we should use for gods.
• The inability of people of faith to produce any evidence for the existence of their gods that would be admissible in a court of law, when challenged to do so. They offer arguments and hypothetical analogies instead. One must assume that if they had convincing evidence they would gladly produce it when challenged to do so, rather than offering trivial ideas such as, "there very well could be a God who simply chose not to provide evidence that He exists."(One wants to ask how anyone would have a chance to know about such a god, and why they would bother to believe in it.)
• The negative results of prayer experiments.
• The variety of real world explanations -- not involving contact with some god -- for the personal experiences that some theists claim prove to them that some god exists.
• All the bad stuff that happens on the watch of a supposedly kind, benevolent, and loving god. Childhood leukemia, for example.

And here are my responses:

I

The similarity of ancient folk tales about gods that have been adopted into various religions. This suggests that gods are a human invention.

Answer

Why that rather than variation of common memories, specifically of Flood, Fall, Tower of Babel and a few more?

II

How some religions have fallen out of favor -- Greek, Roman, Norse, for example -- and are now called "myths," suggesting that current-day religions will likely experience the same fate. Why? Because they are stories with no basis in fact. They, too, are myths.

Answer

I do not think Greek, Roman, Norse or Indic myths about how pre-human world of gods began has sufficient basis in fact, that is not to say I consider all stories considered as part of their mythologies as non-factual.

Abiogenesis has as little basis in fact as Chaos producing Gaia, Erebos, Nyx and Eros - or ice and fire in Ginnungagap producing Audhumbla and Ymer.

III

The absolute lack of any convincing evidence that any gods exist now or ever have existed, suggesting (but not absolutely proving) that gods are fictional characters in human folklore, not supernatural agents.

Answer

As for "absolute" lack of "convincing" evidence, you are admitting there is some evidence at least purported as such, even if not convincing you.

This makes the lack relative, namely to your standard of what is convincing.

And it may be a biassed rather than a high one.

IV

Absence of evidence that something exists, while not rising to the level of conclusive proof, is evidence of the absence of that thing. It's the standard we use for dragons, leprechauns, the Loch Ness monster, the yeti, and the monster under the bed. Therefore it is the standard we should use for gods.

Answer

The Monster under the bed is usually a scare of childhood, if as much.

For the rest, there is at least some evidence. Your evidence on leprechauns depends on what you think of reliability of the Irish peasants claiming to have seen them. And so on.

V

The inability of people of faith to produce any evidence for the existence of their gods that would be admissible in a court of law, when challenged to do so. They offer arguments and hypothetical analogies instead. One must assume that if they had convincing evidence they would gladly produce it when challenged to do so, rather than offering trivial ideas such as, "there very well could be a God who simply chose not to provide evidence that He exists." (One wants to ask how anyone would have a chance to know about such a god, and why they would bother to believe in it.)

Answer

Whoever said "there very well could be a God who simply chose not to provide evidence that He exists," was not a Thomist and insufficiently familiar with Romans 1:18-20.

In a court of law, when not weighing "beyond reasonable doubt", but about "in the balance of probabilities", I am not sure that Prima Via would fare worse than Newtonian explanation of night and day - once the court had decided to try that case.

When weighing "beyond reasonable doubt" the court would certainly tend to answer according to previous biasses on what is reasonable.

VI

The negative results of prayer experiments.

Answer

Namely?

VII

The variety of real world explanations -- not involving contact with some god -- for the personal experiences that some theists claim prove to them that some god exists.

Answer

I am not using personal experiences as apologetic proof.

VIII

All the bad stuff that happens on the watch of a supposedly kind, benevolent, and loving god. Childhood leukemia, for example.

Answer

God knowing everything, God knows who is better off dead (and apart from cases of guilt for crimes meriting death penalty or acts in self defense and war, when just, God is the only one who knows that). A child who is baptised and dies of leucemia at 5 is pretty certain of being eternally in Heaven.

Some such would have apostasised and gone to Hell, if given the years to grow up and do the reflections you did.

Above will be forwarded to him next time I log into quora, so he can answer and so he can tell me if quora or his blog is best for attribution link.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Saint Thérèse of the Child Jesus
3.X.2016