For those who see no convincing evidence for the existance of God: Does this help?

Question

http://www.carm.org/atheism/noevidence.htm

Answer 1

Please... allow me to dissect the very first point.

I don't see any convincing evidence for the existence of flarfmickdoogan,
That does not mean there is no flarfmickdoogan.
Since you cannot know all evidence, it is possible that evidence exists that proves flarfmickdoogan's existence, or at least supports his existence.
Therefore, it is possible that flarfmickdoogan exists.
If it is possible, then faith has its place.
If it is possible that flarfmickdoogan exists, then you should be an agnostic (an agnostic holds that flarfmickdoogan may exist but no proof can be had for flarfmickdoogan's existence.)

So...... as you see, you MUST either believe in the flarfmickdoogan or be agnostic towards the flarfmickdoogan. It is only logical. Feel free to apply this logic to any other concept, no matter how wonky. TA-DA! They all now exist (or retain the possibility of existing). Congratulations... you've just filled the world to the brink with every myth, imaginary friend, delusion, flight of fancy, etc. What WILL we do with all of them?

*eyeroll*

Answer 2

Well I do agree with one point, agnosticism is the most logical position to take. However, the problem with the article is that it was written to address the matter of people not seeing any evidence of god, yet the author presents not one piece of evidence. All he or she does is try to show why it is the atheist's fault for not seeing evidence. Most religion's use this technique of placing the blame with the person, and it is very effective in brainwashing them. While the author does point out that nobody can know all the evidence, he or she still does not provide any evidence for the existence of God. The burden of proof is on the person claiming his existence, so no I'm afraid the article doesn't help.

Answer 3

CARM has been around for a while. It's sad, isn't it, that people just refuse to accept that there are people who do not believe the same things that they do. Such is life.

The problem with the arguments at CARM is that they attempt to prove that there is a god by showing that it's impossible to prove that there is no god.

Let's try an expirement. I say that man has visited pluto. Somebody built a space-ship, took off and visited pluto. He did this before about 1960, when satellites wouldn't have noticed him. Prove to me that this didn't happen.

You might say that there wasn't the technology then. Do you know of all of the technology that did exist at that time? Technology is built on knowledge. Isn't it possible that somebody had knowledge that wasn't passed on? Couldn't this person if he had passed on his technology completely leap-started the industry?

While it's extremely unlikely that such a thing happened, can you PROVE to me with absolute certainty and tangible proof that no such thing happened?

My evidence would be my faith. While you couldn't prove that it didn't happen, I would have no chance of proving to you that it did. We would each have our beliefs and could not convince each other.

There is no tangible evidence for god, you rely on your faith in scripture and spiritual experience. That is simply not enough for an athiest. They see multiple scriptures, condemning each other and no real evidence of a god. Without a god, they find their lives as fulfilling as do believers. What benefit would belief in a god offer other than the long shot that what they see as myth may be true?

Answer 4

Everyone who is an atheist knows that it's not possible to completely rule out some sort of deity since we don't know everything about everything. In practice, no deity influences the way we live our lives. Would you call yourself a Santa Claus atheist or a Santa Claus agnostic? You are, for all practical purposes, a Santa Claus atheist just like I am a God atheist. There is no evidence for a God, and there is evidence AGAINST the Christian God.

Edit: I kinda feel sorry for this guy now that his argument was totally torn to shreads, but then again, he probably won't change his mind about God so **** him.

Answer 5

Well, I could debate what your question means by going off on your choice of the word "help", but I'll focus on another instead.

Agnostic.

It seems that Christians think that if they can convince someone to call himself an agnostic rather than an atheist, then they've won. They see that change of label as a weakening of stance. Given the difficulty (impossibility) of proving something doesn't exist, I guess that all atheists save a very small stubborn faction would be agnostics. But the fact is that no matter what you decide we should be labeled, our take on the dispute doesn't change. A rose by any other name...

Answer 6

Lets tear this ignorant little site apart piece by piece, shall we?

For starters:
1. I don't see any convincing evidence for the existence of Unicorns,
That does not mean there are no Unicorns.
Since you cannot know all evidence, it is possible that evidence exists that proves Unicorns existence, or at least supports their existence.
Therefore, it is possible that Unicorns exist.
If it is possible, then faith has its place.
If it is possible that Unicrons exists, then you should be an agnostic (an agnostic holds that Unicorns may exist but no proof can be had for their existence.)
It is possible that there is no evidence at all for Unicorns.
But this cannot be stated absolutely, since all evidence would need to be known to show there is no evidence.
Therefore, since all evidence cannot be known by any one person, it is possible that evidence exists that supports Unicorn-belief.
Then what kind of evidence would be acceptable?
If you have not decided what evidence would be sufficient and reasonable, then you cannot state that there is no evidence for Unicorns.

Are you convinced in the possibility of the wondermous saving power of Unicorns? You should be--there is as much proof for them as any god. Your clearly accurate apologetic outline has helped us all immensely in seeing that we must all be agnostic in the belief of Unicorns. Thank you for showing us the Way.

Answer 7

YIKES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ROTE BIBLICAL BABBLE at it's finest!

Hey Dude! I sure hope you are getting this.......... people are sick and tired of the Biblical Babble and would rather sit on a sharp stick than listen to it!

gungrave4... is delusional. What they found was solidified lava columns (remember they said they were "SO VERY HEAVY") not Noah's ark.

And there is NO EVIDENCE whatsoever of a "Biblical Flood" NONE! NADDA! DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Maybe you should try going back to school and get yourself an education and start being a productive member of society rather than a sheep crazing in the Biblical pasture. ;-)

Answer 8

Not a single bit of proof, just a bunch of logical fallicies folded into one.

Let's see, I'll address C. C asks, "Then what kind of evidence would be acceptable?"

So, I'll tell you what would be acceptable.

Thomas was a non-believer after Jesus's death. He said, "Until I see the holes in his hands and feet, place my finger in the holes in his hands, and my hand in his side, I will not believe." Jesus so loved Thomas that he provided this exact proof DESPITE Thomas having LOST FAITH. Jesus did not condemn Thomas, he just elevated those who believe but did not see, he did NOT say, "Here's your proof, you're going to hell because you needed proof."

So. That's the evidence I want. I want Jesus to show up so I can put my finger in the holes in his hands and my hand in his side.

SO... I have decided what evidence will be acceptable. I have based this DIRECTLY on Christianity, so it is not an unfair proof. And no, Christianity does NOT fit this criteria because...

wouldn't you know it...

Jesus still hasn't shown up.

Try harder next time.

Answer 9

One could apply the same philosophy to the existence of Snow White.

Answer 10

Seems like a weak, desperate argument to me... Like when Kirk Cameron and some other guy tried to proof God is an intelligent designer with a frickin' banana.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4&search=kirk+cameron

Of course a banana fits our hands... our hands evolved around it.