Given that I think the probability that a God of this earth exists is within epsilon of 0, I find it hard to imagine what would make it less likely. But I thought that the question was what would convince me. Some atheists say absolutely nothing, which I think is excessively dogmatic.
In media there is a stereotype of the skeptic who gets all sorts of great evidence for the supernatural thrown at them, but who closes their eyes and refuses to even consider it. It is in CS Lewis also. That’s not science, IMO. Or even true skepticism.
Religion seems to understand the value of evidence, because I’ve seen lots of theists ask “if Jesus stood right before you, would you believe?” I’d have some questions, but maybe. But they never produce this Jesus, just the hypothetical. An equivalent in science would be “if you saw some object moving faster than light, would you believe?” You never see that, because the obvious answer is “show me the evidence.”
Can’t argue with that, but for much of Christianity not believing in God, and the right kind of god, has serious consequences in the afterlife.
But I didn’t give the full argument. The other part is that this god who does not give us evidence either does not care if we believe, or does not exist. But if it does care, then he can convince us.
And if he cares, and doesn’t give evidence, and sentences us to eternal torture for not believing, then he is a monster. Or a Vogon.
Completely agree. IMO the chance that a particular religious sect will have a positive influence on society is strongly and inversely proportional to the extent that it believes in Hell. For anyone at all, really, but condemning people whose only sin is not having faith in unprovable claims would certainly be an especially dickish move.