Christians cant prove God exists. Atheists can prove he doesnt. Are agnostics right then???

Question

I missed out the t lol. atheists cant.

Answer 1

Well, judging on your question, I would say you admit that atheists can prove god doesnt exist :)

Just kidding, I understand. But my opinion is this, if you are agnostic about god, you must be agnostic about bigfoot, nessy, and unicorns as well because you cannot prove that anything absolutely does NOT exist. My standpoint is that until even the slightest shred of evidence can be presented, there is not a god. In all truth, there is actually substantially more evidence for unicorns, dragons and sea monsters than there is for a god... just check ancient literature. Only a few texts claim to see or interact with "god" while thousands claim to interact with mythical beasts. Could it be that both were just explaining their world the best way it made sense to them? I'd say likely.

Answer 2

Agnostics are atheists, it is just a different word for the same thing. Atheists do not believe that gods exist for various reasons, agnostics do not believe in gods either. Agnostics qualify the lack of belief by saying that you cannot know that gods exist. They still don't believe in gods so they are atheists.

The term "agnostic" was coined in the 19th century by Thomas Huxley, often called "Darwin's Bulldog". "Atheist" has been around for a lot longer.

Answer 3

It is apparently true that Christians can't prove God exists, because it's been two-thousand years and all they've got is their empty faith. Because it's impossible to prove a negative, atheists cannot use deductive logic to prove God doesn't exist. (This due to the nature of logic and says nothing whatever about God.) Statistically speaking, billions of people from hundreds of faiths have spent thousands of years and have utterly failed to prove the existence of even one god. I'll settle for an overwhelming preponderance of the evidence -- God almost certainly does not exist.....

Answer 4

You know, I used to have all the respect in the world for agnostics. I saw them as completelt open-minded people who would never go around telling people they are right because they don't even have a belief.

Then I ran into some jerks like you.

Answer 5

It seems to me what is called for is an exquisite balance between two conflicting needs: the most skeptical scrutiny of all hypotheses that are served up to us and at the same time a great openness to new ideas … If you are only skeptical, then no new ideas make it through to you … On the other hand, if you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish the useful ideas from the worthless ones.

Answer 6

The Transcendental argument for the existence of God is proof for the existence of God . This is where such things as logic, science, ethics are without meaning apart from the preconditioning belief in the existence of the Christian God.

Answer 7

Yes. And I assume you mean ''can't.'' Basically everybody can be qualified as agnostic. What matters is:

Are you a theist agnostic?
An agnostic agnostic?
Or, an atheist agnostic?

How nice..more useless labelling...

Answer 8

No-one can prove the non-existence of anything. It is a logical impossibility. Proof requires evidence. Something non-existent obviously cannot provide evidence of its non-existence. Therefore there can be no proof. Absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence.
.

Answer 9

Can You Prove God Exists?
Before we answer this question, we must distinguish five questions that are often confused.

First, there is the question of whether something exists or not. A thing can exist whether we know it or not.
Second, there is the question of whether we know it exists. (To answer this question affirmatively is to presuppose that the first question is answered affirmatively, of course; though a thing can exist without our knowing it, we cannot know it exists unless it exists.)
Third, there is the question of whether we have a reason for our knowledge. We can know some things without being able to lead others to that knowledge by reasons. Many Christians think God's existence is like that.
Fourth, there is the question of whether this reason, if it exists, amounts to a proof. Most reasons do not. Most of the reasons we give for what we believe amount to probabilities, not proofs. For instance, the building you sit in may collapse in one minute, but the reliability of the contractor and the construction materials is a good reason for thinking that very improbable.
Fifth, if there is a proof, is it a scientific proof, a proof by the scientific method, i.e., by experiment, observation, and measurement? Philosophical proofs can be good proofs, but they do not have to be scientific proofs.
I believe we can answer yes to the first four of these questions about the existence of God but not to the fifth. God exists, we can know that, we can give reasons, and those reasons amount to proof, but not scientific proof, except in an unusually broad sense.

There are many arguments for God's existence, but most of them have the same logical structure, which is the basic structure of any deductive argument. First, there is a major premise, or general principle. Then, a minor premise states some particular data in our experience that come under that principle. Finally, the conclusion follows from applying the general principle to the particular case.

In each case the conclusion is that God exists, but the premises of the different arguments are different. The arguments are like roads, from different starting points, all aiming at the same goal of God. In subsequent essays we will explore the arguments from cause and effect, from conscience, from history, and from Pascal's Wager. The next essay explores the Argument from Design.

Answer 10

Back in my agnostic days I thought I can’t know for sure but there probably isn’t a God.

Then God intervened and said, “Wanta bet?

And I said, “No Sir!”