RationalWiki offers this:
The basic assumption of theism, that God does exist, hasn’t been backed up with solid and universally convincing evidence – so arguing the finer points of the nature of God is quite pointless.
But Bob Perry has a better grasp on the situation:
But if science is the only appropriate defender of the Naturalistic worldview, it seems fair to ask how science can analyze things that, under the presuppositions of Naturalism, are not possible even in principle? How do the priests of scientism propose to explain away non-natural realities?
Take for instance the often-repeated declaration that “science has disproved God.” This is an odd claim to say the least. For one thing, it must simultaneously address the mutually exclusive truths that: 1) science is the study of the physical universe and, 2) no credible theist has ever claimed that God is part of the physical universe. This detail seems to be lost on the priests of scientism – especially on those who espouse their disbelief in the deity with a smug wave of the hand and a demand for “evidence.”
They insist that the Christian theist offer acceptable physical evidence for a non-physical entity that the scientific clergy has already dismissed by mere presupposition. Do they not see the circularity in their reasoning? Without it, the entire scaffolding of scientism collapses under the weight of its own criteria for identifying truth.
- RationalWiki (2013). Atheism FAQ for the Newly Deconverted. Available http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki_Atheism_FAQ_for_the_Newly_Deconverted. Last accessed 31st Dec 2013.
- Perry, B. (2010). Defrocking the Priests of Scientism. Apologetics 315. Available http://www.apologetics315.com/2010/04/essay-defrocking-priests-of-scientism.html. Last accessed 17h Oct 2013.