If so, how would you go about it?
An argument from ‘silence’ in which your failure to ‘perceive’ what you personally take to be either a) the ontological entity that constitutes what you choose to accept as “God;” b) what you personally consider to be conclusive proof of His identity?
The history of science is littered with names of folk whose theories and hypotheses were dismissed and ignored for want of what others in the establishment considered suitable evidence. Gregor Mendel is one of the best examples we have of this – a whole new discipline in the field of biology – that little known thing we call ‘genetics’ – emerged out of his work, which were not accepted until after his death.
Let’s take a much-less known case in a more obscure discipline for the sake of a bit of contrast: Alfred Wegener, who first suggested that continents moved around on the surface of the planet in 1915. His ideas were dismissed as fantasy. His claim was largely based on the fact that the landmass of the Earth looked like a huge jigsaw: Africa and South America appear to fit together. It was only years later that other evidence emerged to support his theory and the new science of plate tectonics was born.
I’ll save the anthropological breakdown of science for another post, but for now…the idea that a ‘scientific method’ is more rational may be something we can argue about at varying levels of erudition and social courtesy, but the word ’empirical’ is very clearly defined, and for those who understand it who would rather that God did not exist, it would be necessary to prove that He did not – otherwise Christopher Hitchens’ now fabled use of the concept of “cognitive dissonance” is literally meaningless in any scientifically substantive way. The only way to avoid cognitive dissonance would be to be able to prove that God does NOT exist. And as Richard Dawkins appears to have actually said, on a scale of 1 to 7, his feeling that God did not exist pitches up at between 6 and 6.9 – and that’s rather less than 100% certainty.
If Richard Dawkins is really an agnostic, as opposed to an atheist (you may need to read this) – then that fact alone suggests that proving that God does not exist may be very much less than straightforward…
So, it looks like one needs just as much faith to believe that God does not exist as one does to believe that He does..