WHY would the "Creator of the Universe" be playing PEEK-A-BOO with humans? WHY is it that we can find not one trace of this claimed to exist "Creator" even in places that we know there SHOULD be a trace of it? 𝗔𝗕𝗦𝗘𝗡𝗖𝗘 𝗢𝗙 𝗘𝗩𝗜𝗗𝗘𝗡𝗖𝗘 𝗜𝗦 𝗘𝗩𝗜𝗗𝗘𝗡𝗖𝗘 𝗢𝗙 𝗔𝗕𝗦𝗘𝗡𝗖𝗘 𝗪𝗛𝗘𝗡 𝗧𝗛𝗘𝗥𝗘 𝗜𝗦 𝗡𝗢 𝗘𝗩𝗜𝗗𝗘𝗡𝗖𝗘 𝗪𝗛𝗘𝗥𝗘 𝗬𝗢𝗨 𝗪𝗢𝗨𝗟𝗗 𝗥𝗘𝗔𝗦𝗢𝗡𝗔𝗕𝗟𝗬 𝗘𝗫𝗣𝗘𝗖𝗧 𝗧𝗢 𝗙𝗜𝗡𝗗 𝗜𝗧! 𝗪𝗛𝗬 𝗪𝗢𝗨𝗟𝗗 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗦𝗨𝗣𝗣𝗢𝗦𝗘𝗗 "𝗖𝗥𝗘𝗔𝗧𝗢𝗥 𝗢𝗙 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗨𝗡𝗜𝗩𝗘𝗥𝗦𝗘" 𝗕𝗘 𝗣𝗟𝗔𝗬𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗣𝗘𝗘𝗞-𝗔-𝗕𝗢𝗢 𝗪𝗜𝗧𝗛 𝗛𝗨𝗠𝗔𝗡𝗜𝗧𝗬? If an 𝗔𝗟𝗟-𝗣𝗢𝗪𝗘𝗥𝗙𝗨𝗟, 𝗔𝗟𝗟-𝗞𝗡𝗢𝗪𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗖𝗥𝗘𝗔𝗧𝗢𝗥 exists, wants humanity to know it exists, and actively intervenes in human affairs, 𝗪𝗛𝗬 𝗖𝗔𝗡'𝗧 𝗪𝗘 𝗙𝗜𝗡𝗗 𝗔 𝗦𝗜𝗡𝗚𝗟𝗘 𝗨𝗡𝗔𝗠𝗕𝗜𝗚𝗨𝗢𝗨𝗦, 𝗦𝗖𝗜𝗘𝗡𝗧𝗜𝗙𝗜𝗖𝗔𝗟𝗟𝗬 𝗩𝗘𝗥𝗜𝗙𝗜𝗔𝗕𝗟𝗘 𝗧𝗥𝗔𝗖𝗘 𝗢𝗙 𝗜𝗧? ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 𝗦𝗘𝗖𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡 𝟭. 𝗔𝗕𝗦𝗘𝗡𝗖𝗘 𝗢𝗙 𝗘𝗩𝗜𝗗𝗘𝗡𝗖𝗘 𝗖𝗔𝗡 𝗕𝗘 𝗘𝗩𝗜𝗗𝗘𝗡𝗖𝗘 𝗢𝗙 𝗔𝗕𝗦𝗘𝗡𝗖𝗘 • The familiar statement "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is frequently misused. • In reality, 𝗮𝗯𝘀𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗜𝗦 𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗮𝗯𝘀𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗯𝗹𝘆 𝗯𝗲 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗲𝘅𝗶𝘀𝘁. • If a claim predicts observable evidence, and careful investigation repeatedly fails to find it, 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗳𝗮𝗶𝗹𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝗔𝗚𝗔𝗜𝗡𝗦𝗧 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗺. 𝗘𝗫𝗔𝗠𝗣𝗟𝗘: If someone claims an elephant lives in your garage, but repeated inspections reveal no elephant, footprints, droppings, damage, or other expected traces, the absence of those traces is evidence against the claim. 𝗜𝗠𝗣𝗢𝗥𝗧𝗔𝗡𝗧: This does not establish absolute impossibility. It makes the claim 𝗟𝗘𝗦𝗦 𝗣𝗥𝗢𝗕𝗔𝗕𝗟𝗘. ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 𝗦𝗘𝗖𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡 𝟮. 𝗪𝗛𝗘𝗥𝗘 𝗜𝗦 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗘𝗩𝗜𝗗𝗘𝗡𝗖𝗘 𝗢𝗙 𝗧𝗛𝗜𝗦 𝗦𝗨𝗣𝗣𝗢𝗦𝗘𝗗 𝗖𝗥𝗘𝗔𝗧𝗢𝗥? Religions frequently claim their God: • 𝗖𝗥𝗘𝗔𝗧𝗘𝗗 the universe. • 𝗗𝗘𝗦𝗜𝗚𝗡𝗘𝗗 life and humanity. • 𝗜𝗡𝗧𝗘𝗥𝗩𝗘𝗡𝗘𝗦 in human affairs. • 𝗔𝗡𝗦𝗪𝗘𝗥𝗦 prayers. • 𝗣𝗘𝗥𝗙𝗢𝗥𝗠𝗦 miracles. • 𝗖𝗢𝗠𝗠𝗨𝗡𝗜𝗖𝗔𝗧𝗘𝗦 with humans. • 𝗪𝗔𝗡𝗧𝗦 humans to know and worship him. Yet there is 𝗡𝗢 𝗦𝗖𝗜𝗘𝗡𝗧𝗜𝗙𝗜𝗖𝗔𝗟𝗟𝗬 𝗘𝗦𝗧𝗔𝗕𝗟𝗜𝗦𝗛𝗘𝗗 𝗘𝗩𝗜𝗗𝗘𝗡𝗖𝗘 demonstrating that a supernatural being performs any of these activities. 𝗪𝗛𝗬 𝗗𝗢𝗘𝗦 𝗧𝗛𝗜𝗦 𝗦𝗨𝗣𝗣𝗢𝗦𝗘𝗗𝗟𝗬 𝗔𝗖𝗧𝗜𝗩𝗘 𝗖𝗥𝗘𝗔𝗧𝗢𝗥 𝗟𝗘𝗔𝗩𝗘 𝗡𝗢 𝗖𝗟𝗘𝗔𝗥, 𝗥𝗘𝗣𝗥𝗢𝗗𝗨𝗖𝗜𝗕𝗟𝗘, 𝗜𝗡𝗗𝗘𝗣𝗘𝗡𝗗𝗘𝗡𝗧𝗟𝗬 𝗩𝗘𝗥𝗜𝗙𝗜𝗔𝗕𝗟𝗘 𝗘𝗩𝗜𝗗𝗘𝗡𝗖𝗘 𝗢𝗙 𝗜𝗧𝗦 𝗔𝗖𝗧𝗜𝗩𝗜𝗧𝗬? ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 𝗦𝗘𝗖𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡 𝟯. 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗣𝗥𝗢𝗕𝗟𝗘𝗠 𝗢𝗙 𝗗𝗜𝗩𝗜𝗡𝗘 𝗛𝗜𝗗𝗗𝗘𝗡𝗡𝗘𝗦𝗦 If God is supposedly 𝗔𝗟𝗟-𝗣𝗢𝗪𝗘𝗥𝗙𝗨𝗟, 𝗔𝗟𝗟-𝗞𝗡𝗢𝗪𝗜𝗡𝗚, 𝗔𝗡𝗗 𝗪𝗔𝗡𝗧𝗦 𝗔 𝗥𝗘𝗟𝗔𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡𝗦𝗛𝗜𝗣 𝗪𝗜𝗧𝗛 𝗛𝗨𝗠𝗔𝗡𝗜𝗧𝗬, why remain hidden? • An omnipotent God could reveal himself 𝗨𝗡𝗔𝗠𝗕𝗜𝗚𝗨𝗢𝗨𝗦𝗟𝗬. • An omniscient God would know 𝗘𝗫𝗔𝗖𝗧𝗟𝗬 𝗪𝗛𝗔𝗧 𝗘𝗩𝗜𝗗𝗘𝗡𝗖𝗘 would convince every individual. • A loving God who desires relationships would have reason to make his existence 𝗥𝗘𝗖𝗢𝗚𝗡𝗜𝗭𝗔𝗕𝗟𝗘. • Yet billions of humans remain unconvinced, including people who have sincerely searched for God. 𝗪𝗛𝗬 𝗪𝗢𝗨𝗟𝗗 𝗔 𝗚𝗢𝗗 𝗪𝗛𝗢 𝗗𝗘𝗠𝗔𝗡𝗗𝗦 𝗕𝗘𝗟𝗜𝗘𝗙 𝗠𝗔𝗞𝗘 𝗛𝗜𝗦 𝗘𝗫𝗜𝗦𝗧𝗘𝗡𝗖𝗘 𝗦𝗢 𝗗𝗜𝗙𝗙𝗜𝗖𝗨𝗟𝗧 𝗧𝗢 𝗘𝗦𝗧𝗔𝗕𝗟𝗜𝗦𝗛? This is the philosophical 𝗣𝗥𝗢𝗕𝗟𝗘𝗠 𝗢𝗙 𝗗𝗜𝗩𝗜𝗡𝗘 𝗛𝗜𝗗𝗗𝗘𝗡𝗡𝗘𝗦𝗦, particularly challenging for claims about a loving, personal God. ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 𝗦𝗘𝗖𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡 𝟰. 𝗪𝗛𝗘𝗥𝗘 𝗔𝗥𝗘 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗩𝗘𝗥𝗜𝗙𝗜𝗔𝗕𝗟𝗘 𝗠𝗜𝗥𝗔𝗖𝗟𝗘𝗦? If God regularly intervenes in the physical world, we should reasonably expect 𝗗𝗘𝗧𝗘𝗖𝗧𝗔𝗕𝗟𝗘 𝗖𝗢𝗡𝗦𝗘𝗤𝗨𝗘𝗡𝗖𝗘𝗦. Consider: • Amputated limbs spontaneously regenerating through divine intervention. • Consistent, independently verified supernatural healings. • Reliable demonstrations of prayer producing outcomes beyond natural explanations. • Miraculous events conclusively attributable to a supernatural agent. 𝗡𝗢𝗡𝗘 𝗢𝗙 𝗧𝗛𝗘𝗦𝗘 𝗛𝗔𝗦 𝗕𝗘𝗘𝗡 𝗦𝗖𝗜𝗘𝗡𝗧𝗜𝗙𝗜𝗖𝗔𝗟𝗟𝗬 𝗘𝗦𝗧𝗔𝗕𝗟𝗜𝗦𝗛𝗘𝗗 𝗔𝗦 𝗗𝗜𝗩𝗜𝗡𝗘 𝗜𝗡𝗧𝗘𝗥𝗩𝗘𝗡𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡. People report extraordinary experiences, but 𝗥𝗘𝗣𝗢𝗥𝗧𝗦 𝗔𝗥𝗘 𝗡𝗢𝗧 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗦𝗔𝗠𝗘 𝗔𝗦 𝗩𝗘𝗥𝗜𝗙𝗜𝗘𝗗 𝗦𝗨𝗣𝗘𝗥𝗡𝗔𝗧𝗨𝗥𝗔𝗟 𝗖𝗔𝗨𝗦𝗔𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡. ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 𝗦𝗘𝗖𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡 𝟱. 𝗪𝗛𝗬 𝗗𝗢𝗘𝗦 𝗚𝗢𝗗'𝗦 𝗔𝗖𝗧𝗜𝗩𝗜𝗧𝗬 𝗟𝗢𝗢𝗞 𝗦𝗢 𝗠𝗨𝗖𝗛 𝗟𝗜𝗞𝗘 𝗡𝗔𝗧𝗨𝗥𝗔𝗟 𝗣𝗥𝗢𝗖𝗘𝗦𝗦𝗘𝗦? Throughout history, supernatural explanations have been offered for: • 𝗗𝗜𝗦𝗘𝗔𝗦𝗘: Explained through pathogens, genetics, and physiology. • 𝗟𝗜𝗚𝗛𝗧𝗡𝗜𝗡𝗚: Explained through atmospheric electricity. • 𝗘𝗔𝗥𝗧𝗛𝗤𝗨𝗔𝗞𝗘𝗦: Explained through geological processes. • 𝗕𝗜𝗢𝗗𝗜𝗩𝗘𝗥𝗦𝗜𝗧𝗬: Explained through evolution and other biological processes. • 𝗣𝗟𝗔𝗡𝗘𝗧𝗔𝗥𝗬 𝗠𝗢𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡: Explained through gravity and physics. Natural explanations have repeatedly replaced supernatural explanations. 𝗡𝗢 𝗦𝗖𝗜𝗘𝗡𝗧𝗜𝗙𝗜𝗖 𝗗𝗜𝗦𝗖𝗢𝗩𝗘𝗥𝗬 𝗛𝗔𝗦 𝗘𝗦𝗧𝗔𝗕𝗟𝗜𝗦𝗛𝗘𝗗 𝗧𝗛𝗔𝗧 𝗚𝗢𝗗 𝗪𝗔𝗦 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗡𝗘𝗖𝗘𝗦𝗦𝗔𝗥𝗬 𝗘𝗫𝗣𝗟𝗔𝗡𝗔𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡. This does not logically eliminate every possible Creator, but it undermines claims that unexplained natural phenomena demonstrate divine activity. ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 𝗦𝗘𝗖𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡 𝟲. 𝗪𝗛𝗬 𝗗𝗢𝗘𝗦 𝗚𝗢𝗗 𝗖𝗢𝗠𝗠𝗨𝗡𝗜𝗖𝗔𝗧𝗘 𝗦𝗢 𝗜𝗡𝗘𝗙𝗙𝗘𝗖𝗧𝗜𝗩𝗘𝗟𝗬? If one Creator wants humanity to know the truth, why do we find: • 𝗧𝗛𝗢𝗨𝗦𝗔𝗡𝗗𝗦 𝗢𝗙 𝗖𝗢𝗠𝗣𝗘𝗧𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗥𝗘𝗟𝗜𝗚𝗜𝗢𝗨𝗦 𝗧𝗥𝗔𝗗𝗜𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡𝗦? • Contradictory revelations and scriptures? • Religious beliefs strongly influenced by birthplace, culture, and upbringing? • Sincere believers reaching incompatible conclusions about God's identity and intentions? 𝗪𝗛𝗬 𝗪𝗢𝗨𝗟𝗗 𝗔𝗡 𝗢𝗠𝗡𝗜𝗦𝗖𝗜𝗘𝗡𝗧 𝗖𝗢𝗠𝗠𝗨𝗡𝗜𝗖𝗔𝗧𝗢𝗥 𝗣𝗥𝗢𝗗𝗨𝗖𝗘 𝗔 𝗪𝗢𝗥𝗟𝗗 𝗜𝗡 𝗪𝗛𝗜𝗖𝗛 𝗛𝗨𝗠𝗔𝗡𝗜𝗧𝗬 𝗖𝗔𝗡𝗡𝗢𝗧 𝗘𝗩𝗘𝗡 𝗔𝗚𝗥𝗘𝗘 𝗢𝗡 𝗪𝗛𝗢 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗦𝗨𝗣𝗣𝗢𝗦𝗘𝗗 𝗖𝗢𝗠𝗠𝗨𝗡𝗜𝗖𝗔𝗧𝗢𝗥 𝗜𝗦? Human invention, cultural transmission, and psychological processes provide well-supported explanations for much religious diversity. ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 𝗦𝗘𝗖𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡 𝟳. 𝗧𝗛𝗘 "𝗚𝗢𝗗 𝗜𝗦 𝗛𝗜𝗗𝗜𝗡𝗚" 𝗘𝗫𝗖𝗨𝗦𝗘 𝗖𝗥𝗘𝗔𝗧𝗘𝗦 𝗔𝗡𝗢𝗧𝗛𝗘𝗥 𝗣𝗥𝗢𝗕𝗟𝗘𝗠 Some believers respond: "𝗚𝗼𝗱 𝗱𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗯𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝗵𝗶𝗱𝗲𝘀 𝗵𝗶𝗺𝘀𝗲𝗹𝗳 𝗯𝗲𝗰𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗮𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝗳𝗮𝗶𝘁𝗵." But consider: • Why would an all-loving God prioritize 𝗕𝗘𝗟𝗜𝗘𝗙 𝗪𝗜𝗧𝗛𝗢𝗨𝗧 𝗖𝗢𝗡𝗖𝗟𝗨𝗦𝗜𝗩𝗘 𝗘𝗩𝗜𝗗𝗘𝗡𝗖𝗘? • Why would an omniscient God demand conviction from people who cannot simply choose what convinces them? • Why would a just God punish sincere nonbelief if he deliberately withheld convincing evidence? 𝗗𝗘𝗟𝗜𝗕𝗘𝗥𝗔𝗧𝗘𝗟𝗬 𝗛𝗜𝗗𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗘𝗩𝗜𝗗𝗘𝗡𝗖𝗘 𝗔𝗡𝗗 𝗧𝗛𝗘𝗡 𝗕𝗟𝗔𝗠𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗣𝗘𝗢𝗣𝗟𝗘 𝗙𝗢𝗥 𝗡𝗢𝗧 𝗕𝗘𝗟𝗜𝗘𝗩𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗪𝗢𝗨𝗟𝗗 𝗕𝗘 𝗠𝗢𝗥𝗔𝗟𝗟𝗬 𝗤𝗨𝗘𝗦𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡𝗔𝗕𝗟𝗘. Furthermore, the claim that God deliberately hides requires 𝗜𝗧𝗦 𝗢𝗪𝗡 𝗦𝗨𝗣𝗣𝗢𝗥𝗧𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗘𝗩𝗜𝗗𝗘𝗡𝗖𝗘. ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 𝗦𝗘𝗖𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡 𝟴. 𝗔𝗡 𝗨𝗡𝗗𝗘𝗧𝗘𝗖𝗧𝗔𝗕𝗟𝗘 𝗚𝗢𝗗 𝗖𝗔𝗡𝗡𝗢𝗧 𝗕𝗘 𝗦𝗖𝗜𝗘𝗡𝗧𝗜𝗙𝗜𝗖𝗔𝗟𝗟𝗬 𝗗𝗜𝗦𝗧𝗜𝗡𝗚𝗨𝗜𝗦𝗛𝗘𝗗 𝗙𝗥𝗢𝗠 𝗔 𝗡𝗢𝗡𝗘𝗫𝗜𝗦𝗧𝗘𝗡𝗧 𝗚𝗢𝗗 Suppose someone claims: "𝗚𝗼𝗱 𝗲𝘅𝗶𝘀𝘁𝘀, 𝗯𝘂𝘁 𝗹𝗲𝗮𝘃𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗯𝘀𝗼𝗹𝘂𝘁𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝗻𝗼 𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁𝘀𝗼𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿." Then ask: 𝗪𝗛𝗔𝗧 𝗢𝗕𝗦𝗘𝗥𝗩𝗔𝗕𝗟𝗘 𝗗𝗜𝗙𝗙𝗘𝗥𝗘𝗡𝗖𝗘 𝗪𝗢𝗨𝗟𝗗 𝗧𝗛𝗘𝗥𝗘 𝗕𝗘 𝗕𝗘𝗧𝗪𝗘𝗘𝗡 𝗧𝗛𝗔𝗧 𝗚𝗢𝗗 𝗘𝗫𝗜𝗦𝗧𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗔𝗡𝗗 𝗧𝗛𝗔𝗧 𝗚𝗢𝗗 𝗡𝗢𝗧 𝗘𝗫𝗜𝗦𝗧𝗜𝗡𝗚? If both possibilities predict precisely the same observations, empirical investigation cannot distinguish between them. That does 𝗡𝗢𝗧 logically prove nonexistence. However, it means the claim has 𝗡𝗢 𝗜𝗡𝗗𝗘𝗣𝗘𝗡𝗗𝗘𝗡𝗧 𝗘𝗠𝗣𝗜𝗥𝗜𝗖𝗔𝗟 𝗖𝗢𝗡𝗙𝗜𝗥𝗠𝗔𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡. 𝗔𝗡 𝗨𝗡𝗧𝗘𝗦𝗧𝗔𝗕𝗟𝗘 𝗖𝗟𝗔𝗜𝗠 𝗗𝗢𝗘𝗦 𝗡𝗢𝗧 𝗕𝗘𝗖𝗢𝗠𝗘 𝗧𝗥𝗨𝗘 𝗠𝗘𝗥𝗘𝗟𝗬 𝗕𝗘𝗖𝗔𝗨𝗦𝗘 𝗡𝗢𝗕𝗢𝗗𝗬 𝗖𝗔𝗡 𝗗𝗜𝗦𝗣𝗥𝗢𝗩𝗘 𝗜𝗧. ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 𝗦𝗘𝗖𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡 𝟵. 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗕𝗨𝗥𝗗𝗘𝗡 𝗢𝗙 𝗣𝗥𝗢𝗢𝗙 𝗥𝗘𝗠𝗔𝗜𝗡𝗦 𝗪𝗜𝗧𝗛 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗖𝗟𝗔𝗜𝗠𝗔𝗡𝗧 The person asserting: "𝗔𝗡 𝗜𝗡𝗩𝗜𝗦𝗜𝗕𝗟𝗘, 𝗦𝗨𝗣𝗘𝗥𝗡𝗔𝗧𝗨𝗥𝗔𝗟 𝗖𝗥𝗘𝗔𝗧𝗢𝗥 𝗘𝗫𝗜𝗦𝗧𝗦!" has the responsibility to provide sufficient evidence supporting that assertion. Skeptics do not have to demonstrate the impossibility of every conceivable supernatural being. 𝗥𝗘𝗝𝗘𝗖𝗧𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗔𝗡 𝗨𝗡𝗦𝗨𝗣𝗣𝗢𝗥𝗧𝗘𝗗 𝗖𝗟𝗔𝗜𝗠 𝗜𝗦 𝗡𝗢𝗧 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗦𝗔𝗠𝗘 𝗔𝗦 𝗖𝗟𝗔𝗜𝗠𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗧𝗢 𝗛𝗔𝗩𝗘 𝗣𝗥𝗢𝗩𝗘𝗗 𝗜𝗧𝗦 𝗢𝗣𝗣𝗢𝗦𝗜𝗧𝗘. And inventing explanations for why evidence is missing does not supply the missing evidence. ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 𝗦𝗘𝗖𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡 𝟭𝟬. 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗖𝗥𝗨𝗖𝗜𝗔𝗟 𝗗𝗜𝗦𝗧𝗜𝗡𝗖𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡: 𝗪𝗛𝗜𝗖𝗛 𝗚𝗢𝗗 𝗔𝗥𝗘 𝗪𝗘 𝗧𝗔𝗟𝗞𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗔𝗕𝗢𝗨𝗧? The absence-of-evidence argument is 𝗦𝗧𝗥𝗢𝗡𝗚𝗘𝗦𝗧 𝗔𝗚𝗔𝗜𝗡𝗦𝗧 𝗚𝗢𝗗 𝗖𝗟𝗔𝗜𝗠𝗦 𝗧𝗛𝗔𝗧 𝗣𝗥𝗘𝗗𝗜𝗖𝗧 𝗢𝗕𝗦𝗘𝗥𝗩𝗔𝗕𝗟𝗘 𝗥𝗘𝗦𝗨𝗟𝗧𝗦. 𝗔 𝗣𝗘𝗥𝗦𝗢𝗡𝗔𝗟, 𝗜𝗡𝗧𝗘𝗥𝗩𝗘𝗡𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡𝗜𝗦𝗧 𝗚𝗢𝗗: A God who answers prayers, performs miracles, communicates clearly, and wants everyone to know him makes claims that can, at least partly, be evaluated against observations. 𝗔 𝗡𝗢𝗡𝗜𝗡𝗧𝗘𝗥𝗩𝗘𝗡𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡𝗜𝗦𝗧 𝗗𝗘𝗜𝗦𝗧𝗜𝗖 𝗖𝗥𝗘𝗔𝗧𝗢𝗥: A hypothetical Creator who initiated the universe but never intervenes might leave no independently identifiable evidence of personal activity. Consequently, the absence of miracles or revelations does not by itself disprove such a Creator. 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗠𝗢𝗥𝗘 𝗢𝗕𝗦𝗘𝗥𝗩𝗔𝗕𝗟𝗘 𝗔𝗖𝗧𝗜𝗩𝗜𝗧𝗬 𝗔 𝗥𝗘𝗟𝗜𝗚𝗜𝗢𝗡 𝗔𝗧𝗧𝗥𝗜𝗕𝗨𝗧𝗘𝗦 𝗧𝗢 𝗜𝗧𝗦 𝗚𝗢𝗗, 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗠𝗢𝗥𝗘 𝗥𝗘𝗟𝗘𝗩𝗔𝗡𝗧 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗔𝗕𝗦𝗘𝗡𝗖𝗘 𝗢𝗙 𝗘𝗫𝗣𝗘𝗖𝗧𝗘𝗗 𝗘𝗩𝗜𝗗𝗘𝗡𝗖𝗘 𝗕𝗘𝗖𝗢𝗠𝗘𝗦. ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 𝗖𝗢𝗡𝗖𝗟𝗨𝗦𝗜𝗢𝗡: 𝗪𝗛𝗬 𝗜𝗦 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗖𝗥𝗘𝗔𝗧𝗢𝗥 𝗢𝗙 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗨𝗡𝗜𝗩𝗘𝗥𝗦𝗘 𝗣𝗟𝗔𝗬𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗣𝗘𝗘𝗞-𝗔-𝗕𝗢𝗢? An allegedly 𝗔𝗟𝗟-𝗣𝗢𝗪𝗘𝗥𝗙𝗨𝗟, 𝗔𝗟𝗟-𝗞𝗡𝗢𝗪𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗖𝗥𝗘𝗔𝗧𝗢𝗥 who supposedly wants humanity to know him should have no difficulty providing clear, unmistakable evidence of his existence. Yet we find: 𝗡𝗢 𝗦𝗖𝗜𝗘𝗡𝗧𝗜𝗙𝗜𝗖𝗔𝗟𝗟𝗬 𝗩𝗘𝗥𝗜𝗙𝗜𝗘𝗗 𝗗𝗜𝗩𝗜𝗡𝗘 𝗜𝗡𝗧𝗘𝗥𝗩𝗘𝗡𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡𝗦. 𝗡𝗢 𝗨𝗡𝗔𝗠𝗕𝗜𝗚𝗨𝗢𝗨𝗦𝗟𝗬 𝗩𝗘𝗥𝗜𝗙𝗜𝗘𝗗 𝗦𝗨𝗣𝗘𝗥𝗡𝗔𝗧𝗨𝗥𝗔𝗟 𝗖𝗢𝗠𝗠𝗨𝗡𝗜𝗖𝗔𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡𝗦. 𝗡𝗢 𝗥𝗘𝗣𝗥𝗢𝗗𝗨𝗖𝗜𝗕𝗟𝗘 𝗗𝗘𝗠𝗢𝗡𝗦𝗧𝗥𝗔𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡 𝗢𝗙 𝗦𝗨𝗣𝗘𝗥𝗡𝗔𝗧𝗨𝗥𝗔𝗟 𝗠𝗜𝗥𝗔𝗖𝗟𝗘𝗦. 𝗡𝗢 𝗦𝗖𝗜𝗘𝗡𝗧𝗜𝗙𝗜𝗖𝗔𝗟𝗟𝗬 𝗘𝗦𝗧𝗔𝗕𝗟𝗜𝗦𝗛𝗘𝗗 𝗜𝗗𝗘𝗡𝗧𝗜𝗙𝗜𝗖𝗔𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡 𝗢𝗙 𝗔 𝗖𝗥𝗘𝗔𝗧𝗢𝗥. These absences do not prove that every conceivable God is impossible. 𝗕𝗨𝗧 𝗪𝗛𝗘𝗡 𝗔 𝗣𝗔𝗥𝗧𝗜𝗖𝗨𝗟𝗔𝗥 𝗚𝗢𝗗 𝗖𝗟𝗔𝗜𝗠 𝗣𝗥𝗘𝗗𝗜𝗖𝗧𝗦 𝗘𝗩𝗜𝗗𝗘𝗡𝗖𝗘 𝗧𝗛𝗔𝗧 𝗪𝗘 𝗥𝗘𝗔𝗦𝗢𝗡𝗔𝗕𝗟𝗬 𝗦𝗛𝗢𝗨𝗟𝗗 𝗙𝗜𝗡𝗗, 𝗔𝗡𝗗 𝗧𝗛𝗔𝗧 𝗘𝗩𝗜𝗗𝗘𝗡𝗖𝗘 𝗖𝗢𝗡𝗦𝗜𝗦𝗧𝗘𝗡𝗧𝗟𝗬 𝗙𝗔𝗜𝗟𝗦 𝗧𝗢 𝗔𝗣𝗣𝗘𝗔𝗥, 𝗜𝗧𝗦 𝗔𝗕𝗦𝗘𝗡𝗖𝗘 𝗕𝗘𝗖𝗢𝗠𝗘𝗦 𝗟𝗘𝗚𝗜𝗧𝗜𝗠𝗔𝗧𝗘 𝗘𝗩𝗜𝗗𝗘𝗡𝗖𝗘 𝗔𝗚𝗔𝗜𝗡𝗦𝗧 𝗧𝗛𝗔𝗧 𝗖𝗟𝗔𝗜𝗠. ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗙𝗜𝗡𝗔𝗟 𝗤𝗨𝗘𝗦𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡: 𝗪𝗛𝗬 𝗗𝗢𝗘𝗦 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗦𝗨𝗣𝗣𝗢𝗦𝗘𝗗 "𝗖𝗥𝗘𝗔𝗧𝗢𝗥 𝗢𝗙 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗨𝗡𝗜𝗩𝗘𝗥𝗦𝗘" 𝗕𝗘𝗛𝗔𝗩𝗘 𝗦𝗢 𝗖𝗢𝗡𝗦𝗜𝗦𝗧𝗘𝗡𝗧𝗟𝗬 𝗟𝗜𝗞𝗘 𝗦𝗢𝗠𝗘𝗧𝗛𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗧𝗛𝗔𝗧 𝗗𝗢𝗘𝗦𝗡'𝗧 𝗘𝗫𝗜𝗦𝗧? And which explanation requires fewer unsupported assumptions? 𝗔. An invisible, supernatural Creator exists, wants us to believe, possesses unlimited power to reveal himself, but somehow remains scientifically undetectable. 𝗕. Humans invented gods, attributed unexplained phenomena to them, and continue believing in them without sufficient independent evidence. 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗔𝗕𝗦𝗘𝗡𝗖𝗘 𝗢𝗙 𝗘𝗫𝗣𝗘𝗖𝗧𝗘𝗗 𝗘𝗩𝗜𝗗𝗘𝗡𝗖𝗘 𝗗𝗢𝗘𝗦𝗡'𝗧 𝗣𝗥𝗢𝗩𝗘 𝗕 — 𝗕𝗨𝗧 𝗜𝗧 𝗜𝗦 𝗔 𝗟𝗘𝗚𝗜𝗧𝗜𝗠𝗔𝗧𝗘 𝗥𝗘𝗔𝗦𝗢𝗡 𝗧𝗢 𝗤𝗨𝗘𝗦𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡 𝗔. 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗕𝗨𝗥𝗗𝗘𝗡 𝗢𝗙 𝗣𝗥𝗢𝗢𝗙 𝗥𝗘𝗠𝗔𝗜𝗡𝗦 𝗢𝗡 𝗧𝗛𝗢𝗦𝗘 𝗖𝗟𝗔𝗜𝗠𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗧𝗛𝗔𝗧 𝗔 𝗖𝗥𝗘𝗔𝗧𝗢𝗥 𝗔𝗖𝗧𝗨𝗔𝗟𝗟𝗬 𝗘𝗫𝗜𝗦𝗧𝗦!