After considering today's discussion, I feel I must disagree with the claim Matt put forward -- that although there is insufficient evidence that God exists, there is sufficient evidence to assume that s/he/it does not exist.
The conversation reminded me of a debate I had with a former roommate -- he argued that, with the weight of theories such as quantum physics and evolution, we could safely assume that there is no supreme deity; I continue to maintain that, although matter could come from nothing* and complex life can arise from single-celled organisms, some sort of deity could still exist, with quantum physics and evolution being the mechanisms by which they operate. To put it more concisely, while the abundant evidence for the aforementioned theories -- and others in similar veins -- are indeed necessary conditions for proving the nonexistence of God, I do not think they are sufficient conditions.
I've also mentioned in previous posts my views on the metaphysics of any hypothetical Supreme Being: if it exists, it is most likely completely beyond human comprehension, and therefore also beyond any sort of proof. It's easy enough to argue against the literal existence of God as conceived by the Abrahamic religions,** but if one widens the scope a bit, the issue becomes, in my opinion, much murkier.
Having written this, I can see this is probably just a difference of opinion regarding what I and the professor consider to be "reasonable doubt," and possibly also what we consider "God."
*I have almost no knowledge of quantum mechanics, and am simply going off of what I can recall of this conversation.
**Of course, as I write this now, I realize that this is probably what Matt was aiming for.
