Think About It


Please think about this.

 I heard this the other day: 
"To even ask the question "does God exist" requires one to make the a priori assumption that God probably does exist, otherwise the question doesn't make any sense to ask."

 Um.... no. That's not how it works, sorry to say.

 The assumption God exists is the theistic assumption. The assumption God doesn't exist is the atheistic assumption.

 The question simply is, which assumption (of the two) is right?

 If the theistic assumption was right, then God would be verified, validated, and belief vindicated by the evidence.

 Lacking all trustworthy evidence, as the case seems to be, it rather aligns with the atheist assumption of no God. 

No God therefore no real evidence.

 So the burden of the proof to substantiate the claim "God exists" is always upon the theist to provide a proper demonstration of the evidence that can be checked by skeptics and non-believers of said God.

 If anything, the question "does God exist?" is weighted in favor of the atheist, because no amount of "belief conviction" or "religious tradition" has ever provided convincing and reliable evidence in the way moderns have come to expect of questions of empirical value.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Discussing the Historicity of Jesus with a Christian Agnostic

Image
Steven Jake, the author of the up and coming blog  TheChristian Agnostic , [1]  wrote a rather thorough response to my lengthy comment asking him about the state of the evidence regarding the historical Jesus. I am pleased he took the time to write a thorough response. I only feel that such a thorough response deserves my own more detailed response as my initial comment was merely that—a comment. So without further ado I will address some of Steven Jake’s comments and concerns. Initially Steven Jake (henceforth SJ) posted a quote from New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman claiming that there is an abundance of evidence for a historical Jesus. I merely contested this claim asking for what evidence we have that would be considered historically reliable. As I see it there is none. That doesn’t mean, however, I don’t think there  wasn’t  a historical Jesus, just that we cannot prove if there was or wasn’t and so I remain agnostic as to the historicity of Je...
Read more

Conflating Atheism and Agnosticism is a Mistake

Image
In a discussion over at Bud's blog Dead Logic , a reader asked a question I have been hearing more and more recently. It's a good question, so I thought I would do my part to try and answer it. Doesn't admitting to being an agnostic instead of an atheist FEEL like you're being wishy-washy, or not fully committing to your "belief"? ... I understand that it's only honest to say that we CAN'T be sure, but I sure do hate to show weakness (real or perceived) in an argument. Not at all.  Agnosticism deals with knowledge.  Atheism deals with belief.  The Agnostic position cannot assume whether a thing like a God could exist or not given the lack of sheer evidence for such a things existence. Therefore knowing with any given certainty just isn't possible. The agnostic then makes the claim that a definitive answer with regard to "knowing" of God's existence cannot be given either way. Atheism, however, can state with assurance t...
Read more