Good point. There might be something to it though; here’s a summary in one review
2b: If a suitably defined supernatural being (God) existed, there would be evidence detectable by scientific means. But in fact, the universe presents evidence precisely to the contrary, firmly establishing that such a God does not exist. (Stenger, the work reviewed here.)
If that’s accurate, the title could be fair (and maybe even self chosen). Hmm. Even Dawkins has a section in “The God Delusion” titled “Why There Is Almost Certainly No God”. More from the review:
Stenger then sets forth his program:
Hypothesize a God who plays an important role in the universe.
Assume that God has specific attributes that should provide objective evidence for his existence.
Look for such evidence with an open mind.
If such evidence is found, conclude that God may exist.
If such objective evidence is not found, conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a God with these properties does not exist. (p. 43)
I’m seeing the logic of the title better. I’m not sure if I’m interested enough to look up the book though and evaluate his arguments.
The whole thing reminds me of the recent discussion on miracles late in this thread. Might we logically be able to see traces of the miracle’s performance, or does its supernatural source forever blind us to anyscientific knowledge of it?