Google has led me to the blog of one Arizona Atheist. He has posed a challenge to theists to deal with what he's written. He's written a lot, and I'm not sure I want to go back and read it all and then respond to it all, so I hope we can focus on one or two topics if he responds to me. I really want to see an argument from him for atheism. Then I would like to take his objections to some of the more famous theistic arguments and defuse them.
My initial comment on his challenge:
From what I've read, what you've written interacting with scholars such as Bill Craig has been spotty. You've offered meager responses to his work and have ignored the vast amount of material he's written to deal with the very objections you've put up.
For instance, in dealing with his cosmological argument, you've written, to dispute the first premise that everything that begins to exist has a cause, "According to modern physics, however things can seemingly happen without cause. There are several things we observe that appear to have no cause."
This is just ignorant. You would seemingly claim that things, in this case, can come into existence uncaused out of nothing and that quantum physics has corroborated this. But this isn't the case at all. For starters, the quantum vacuum where these particles seemingly pop into existence is not nothing. This quantum vacuum is demonstrably not nothing. As Craig writes, "a quantum vacuum is a sea of continually forming and dissolving particles, which borrow energy from the vacuum for their brief existence. This is not "nothing," and hence, material particles do not come into being out of nothing. Popular presentations of these models often do not explain that they require a specially fine-tuned, background space-time on the analogy of a quantum mechanical vacuum. The origin of the observable universe from this wider space-time is not a free lunch at all. It requires an elaborately set table, which must be paid for," and, "a quantum vacuum...is a rich physical reality possessing physical properties: it is not creation from nothing."
That's not to mention the sketchy waters we get into with quantum vacuum models, since there are several that take the same data those who present this indeterministic model and develop deterministic models.
That's just one instance.
To respond to your questions here:
I welcome one and all to attempt to refute any argument I place on my blog
Ok. Please point me to one of your arguments for atheism. A refutation of an argument, which I've seen you have attempted quite a few of, is not an argument for your position. Could you give me a good positive argument that there is no God?
Do you think you can prove the existence of the supernatural
It depends on what you mean by "prove." This word has become very vague since the epistemologic systems like verificationism and logical positivism were introduced. It is near impossible to prove 100% much of anything. Can you prove to me that you're not a brain in a vat being stimulated to sense the external world? What kind of evidence could you give for that?
Now, I could give you some good reasons to think that there is a realm of supernatural activity, some would be philosophical arguments such as the cosmological or moral arguments. I could give you good reasons to think that the resurrection of Jesus was an historical event.
can you prove that atheism caused the atrocities by the communists
That's for historians to decide, I suppose. From my reading, most communists were atheists and their philosophical worldviews did lead them to do things those who look to a higher moral authority might not have otherwise done, but the question is ultimately uninteresting when it comes to the question of whether or not God exists.
do you think you can prove any god exists (the one exception being a Deistic god)
Again, depends on what you have in mind when you say "prove." Can you prove God doesn't exist?
**By "evidence" I mean factual, scientific proof
What do you mean by factual and scientific? I think there are truths that are untouchable by the scientific method that we can know to be true. Do you mean empirical evidence? How do you know empirical evidence is a good means of discovering truth? Empirical evidence is useless unless it is examined and interpreted. This seems like deck stacking, and it's not fair in a debate to set the boundaries to your presupposed epistemology.