Well the thing I find so amusing about his arguments is that he refers to God and his actions as if they are real yet he doesn't believe in any of it, so wouldn't that kind of fill his arguments with a load of fictitious points completely nullifying his argument completely? I don't know about that. It would be like me arguing that Megatron were real and has killed a lot of people just because it said so in a book that I believe to be fiction.
What is so amusing here is that I am assuming God is real for the sake of argument. If God is real and he is the God of the bible, there are too many contradictions, too many evils, too many imperfections for him to be a true omnipotent, wholly good, and omniscient God.
Since when has a lack of proof for or against been overwhelming support? If you actually have some evidence to back up your claim of "overwhelming probabilities", I'd love to hear them.
So, you are saying that because there is no evidence for the existence of God it should have weight? Even one example of evidence going the other way would tip the balance overwhelmingly against God's existence. Richard Dawkins has explained the probabilities pretty clearly, and I'll summarize his points:
1. Among the hardest things to figure out in the universe was how the universe and its appearance of design arises.
2. Humans have a natural tendency to assume that what looks designed is designed by a creator.
3. This is false, and is a sky hook. The designer must be more improbable that what is designed, and that raises the question of who designed the designer. This leads to an infinite regress, which is unacceptable.
4. The opposite of a sky hook, a crane, was the process discovered by Darwin: evolution by natural selection. This explained how life diversified on Earth, thus proving that the appearance of design in life is an illusion.
5. The same crane has not yet been discovered in the larger field of physics, but it is possible to apply a similar kind of selective process leading to improbable structures to the whole of the cosmos. This, of course, requires more luck, but by use of the anthropic principle we may postulate more luck than imagined.
6. Such a crane in physics would be ultimately satisfying, because at present we do not have any valid and non-sky hook designer methods for the universe.
Richard Dawkins has also brought up a, dare I say, irrefutable proof that an intelligent designer is extremely improbable. The basic premise is that, however improbable the universe is, the hypothesized creator must be more improbable. This is because you cannot simply say that God exists. He has to have had an origin. Because this being is so improbable, it is very reasonable to bring up a similar 'crane' process to natural selection to slowly build up an improbable structure from selective randomness in small increments. This is the only feasible way this God could exist, but if it is true, then he is not the creator of everything. Then he is not God.
What is the evidence for God's existence? Let me see...
'miracles'
biblical literature
Nothing else (that I can think of, please add more) that hasn't been refuted above.
Miracles and direct communication with Jesus / God / Allah / Satan / Ghosts / Angels / Saints / Spirits / Souls / Vishnu / any deity of any kind are always a result of pareidolia.
Biblical literature has almost no historical value at all; the entire Old Testament is preposterous and vile and the story of Jesus is almost entirely taken from other legends of the region. On top of that, all writings about Jesus were 50 years or more after his supposed resurrection.
