I've heard it argued that an atheist must have complete knowledge of the universe to say, "There is no God" and since no one has this knowledge, there are no atheists.
Aside from ignoring the definition of atheism, what else is flawed with the argument?
2007-06-15 08:04:50 · 36 answers · asked by Eleventy 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Great answers everyone (well, mostly)... Thanks for mentioning:
1) the same must apply to elves, mermaids, and invisible space monkeys.
2) that the theist must, by his own standards, claim complete knowledge of the universe to say there are no atheists.
2007-06-15 08:19:56 · update #1
and to reiterate,the argument changes the definition of "atheist" to include an unreasonable request.
Anyway, I'm gone for weekend, see ya!
2007-06-15 08:21:09 · update #2
I don't even know where to start....
2007-06-15 08:07:37 · answer #1 · answered by ~Heathen Princess~ 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
I'm an Agnostic, so I guess that at least precludes me from falling under the 'complete knowledge' category. I think the same thing can be said for someone who does believe in a 'God'. Otherwise, how do you really know? I also think that to say someone has to have 'complete knowledge of the universe' is unrealistic as it can never happen. Aside from the definition of Athiesm, I think the 'flaw' is that this argument compares a faith-based belief system to a scientific-based belief system, which to me is apples to oranges anyway..
2007-06-15 08:16:01 · answer #2 · answered by Bach 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because atheists never say with 100% certainty that god(s) don't exist. We say that there is no reason to believe that a god or gods exist, let alone any particular god or gods. Even if we knew that, it leaves the question open, "What do the gods want?"
Second, an argument that can be used to prove anything actually proves nothing. You would have to have all the knowledge in the universe to say that the Easter Bunny does not exist.
2007-06-15 08:11:23 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
A real atheist is one who rejects God.
An agnostic is one who neither accepts nor rejects God.
An ignostic is one who cannot even debate about the existence of a God because God has yet to be defined in a satisfactory manner.
There really isn't any proof either way. People like to bring up examples from our physical lives, but God, part of the supernatural, does not have to allow himself to be perceived. It is pointless to argue about the point because we can't know about something that does not show itself.
Edit: Because there ARE people who say they're certain that God exists or does not exist, we need terms for them. Atheist and theist seem to work. Those who say they aren't certain but are "pretty sure" they're right are just self-deceived agnostics. Then again... so are real atheists and theists...
I guess we're all basically agnostic, but some of us like to think we can know or be certain about things that by nature cannot be perceived. This is nonsense.
2007-06-15 08:11:46 · answer #4 · answered by Skye 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The biggest problem with this argument is that it provides an impossible standard. It isn't possible to achieve all the knowledge in the universe. This argument kept me in agnosticism for quite some time, but in the end, I finally realized that if God really existed, then he wouldn't be hiding beyond human knowledge.
I realized that the concept of God is very human in nature and, just like all the God/Creation stories, is based in myth and tradition.
The same argument can be said about leprechauns and unicorns, so in the end, I decided it wasn't worth chasing dreams of leprechauns or hoping to spot a Unicorn. They don't exist.
If one happens across my path one day, then I will have proof and can claim its existence, but that hasn't happened, so I am not going to spend my money, time, and emotion on a life long leprechaun hunt. The same applies to the many Gods that humans believe in.
2007-06-15 08:13:32 · answer #5 · answered by ɹɐǝɟsuɐs Blessed Cheese Maker 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Laziness, apathy, loving rebellion, or just plain ignorance. These are the reasons for most of the modern atheists. The rest have some other lame excuse. Point being, there is no one that is an atheist because of the evidence they have found. Is it impossible for the proof of God's existence to be in a place you have never been? Thid sounds very 'close minded' (the atheist's favorite insult)
Maybe you should switch to an agnostic (not knowing), it doesn't make you sound as crazy
2007-06-15 08:22:23 · answer #6 · answered by 87GN 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I think it's true. To be an athiest, you must have knowledge of the whole universe- past and present, and KNOW that there is no God (or supreme being). And since I know of no one who has time-traveled and I know of no one who has total knowledge, I'd say it's a pretty safe bet to say that most people claiming to be athiest are actually Agnostic- meaning that they're "leaving their options open" or that they THINK there is no God (as we've already covered that no one actually knows that there is no or there never has been a God).
Another reason I'm leery of "athiests" is because in order to be a "true" athiest, one must feel that there is no meaning to anything and that there is no purpose. If truly there was no meaning or purpose...why in the world are there so many angry people here fighting with Believers? If none of it truly mattered...you wouldn't be wasting your time.
2007-06-15 08:15:33 · answer #7 · answered by Bekah S 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
If they follow that logic, then a believer must also have complete knowledge of the universe to say that there is a god. So everyone would be an agnostic.
2007-06-15 08:09:39 · answer #8 · answered by AClaire 3 · 4⤊ 0⤋
You are basically using the old how to prove god does not exist argument.
To prove it does not exist with 100% certainty, one would have to explore and search every square millimeter of the universe, as this is not possible it is a safe bet to say there is no god.
Also, in order to disprove something, it must first be proven to actually exist.
Either way, there is obviously no god.
2007-06-15 09:10:49 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The problem is the person arguing it doesn't even know the proper definition of atheist. An atheist doesn't believe in God. Understanding the universe is completely irrelevant to the definition.
2007-06-15 08:09:38 · answer #10 · answered by razzthedestroyer 2 · 5⤊ 0⤋
Well, once you discount the flawed definition of what it means to be an athiest, there is not much left. That flawed definition which is that atheists must prove a negative is the fundamental flaw of arguments of this nature. The burden of proof is on those who wish to convince you that something exists, not to prove that something does not exist.
As someone has said, prove that pink unicorns wearing purple hats do not exist.
2007-06-15 08:09:40 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 0⤋