Twiglett is conducting a God Survey here .
soph28 asked
"Just curious how many YES's have firm evidence for believing and how many NO's do?"
This is a thread for exploring that question.
It is clearly impossible to prove the non-ness of anything, whether that thing be the Christian God, Apollo, Ra or the Great Spaghetti Monster. Therefore one should not be expected to do so, but rather to examine the evidence and see if it is compelling. It's what you do with everything else.
You're at liberty to believe, for example, there's no such thing as gravity, or oxygen, or the Moon, but I can offer you compelling evidence to the contrary, to which there is little or flimsy counter-evidence. At the end of the debate you can carry on believing it doesn't exist, but the peer-reviewed, testable and detectable evidence is clearly there. And if, one day, compelling evidence is given that Newton's theories are wrong, this will be published, examined, scrutinised and weighed up - and eventually, if has the consensus of the scientific community, the new theory will be adopted. It's what happened with that Phlogiston , for example.
As soon as you start debating, of course, you end up having to define yourself in terms laid down by the other side. This is partly why Prof. Dawkins doesn't do it, much to the chagrin of creationists... Imagine having to debate with people who regularly asserted that the Earth was flat, or that the Moon was made of green cheese. You'd maybe do it once. And then they'd keep coming back again, and again, and again, demanding a platform with you. It enhances their spurious credentials to have a debate with a leading scientist, and does not add a jot to yours - in fact, it cheapens your reputation.