So much evidence for God

Why do Atheists not believe in God when there is so much evidence for him existing?


    The question is in response to the article, "Where does morality come from, if not God?"

    This may sound glib, but because... there's so little evidence for him existing.

    I challenge the premise of your question! It's almost pointless to have this discussion, because few people are familiar with what qualifies as "evidence", and whether the "evidence" is sufficient to demonstrate a claim with any confidence.

    It's like trying to buy a car. Not only do you need "money", but you need enough "money" to reach the purchase price.

    But what is "money"? Does a stick count? Does personal testimony that you have invisible coins qualify? Once the customer and salesperson agree on what "money" is, handing the dealer $10 may not be enough, if the car costs $20,000. The more extravagant the car, the more it costs. The more rare the car, the more it costs. Likewise, the less precedent the god claim, and the more it violates other known aspects of reality, the more evidence is required.

    Most people seem to think that "evidence" is anything that is merely consistent with their claim. Lightning is consistent with Zeus, but we don't consider lightning to be evidence of Zeus.

    Instead, we have standards of evidence, such that the evidence should:

    1. Be presentable - no "I have evidence but I can't find it right now"
    2. Be repeatable - we need to rule out flukes and hoaxes
    3. Be testable - we need to be able to verify
    4. Be logical - no logical fallacies like "We don't know how else it could have happened" (Argument from Ignorance). Must logically support the claim.
    5. Be concordant and exclusive - if the evidence implicates many competing claims, especially mutually exclusive conclusions, it isn't worth anything.
    6. Be falsifiable - life is full of false positives, and we need a way to rule them out. Prayer is an excellent example. 
    7. Be objective - the human mind is very error-prone. The more we can disengage from subjective sources, the higher quality the evidence. No "I had a vision" data.

    It's usually #4 and #5 that most people struggle with. 

    So, if I were to ask, "What evidence can you submit that meets these basic qualifications?", could you list any? (Make sure to triple-check for common logical fallacies)

    To date, we've yet to be presented with any "evidence" that qualifies as such. That's why we don't believe.