Is it just as ridiculous an argument to say with absolute certainty that no god exists as it is to say it does

Question

Neither can be totally proven or disprove, so I have to wonder why one seems so smugly superior to the other on either side of the fence....

Answer 1

I do not think that philosophy can prove the existence of God because to know that God exists requires faith and philosophy deals strictly with logic. Look at all the philosophers that have tried to prove Gods existence with logic but have failed. For example, René Descartes proofs in the Meditations seem logic in proving God but there is still something lacking from them.

Answer 2

While claiming almost anything with absolute certainty probably necessarily has a touch of the ridiculous, I don't think that in this case the two arguments are EQUALLY ridiculous.

The reason for this is Occam's Razor, of course. Once you have an explanation for things that seem to fit the facts, it is not a particularly reasonable thing to do to set about finding much more complicated explanations for the same thing. But it IS reasonable to look for simpler ones. And conversely, if you have two explanations for the same thing, the simpler one is usually the correct one.

For any given proposition of existance, it is simpler to believe that something doesn't exist than that it does. It is POSSIBLE that somewhere in the universe are fairies, unicorns, and vampires... many fiction writers have even made a living by guessing at the kinds of environments that would cause such creatures to naturally come into being. But since we don't seem to have any evidence that any of these hypothetical environments DO exist, it is more reasonable to believe that they don't (and even MORE reasonable to hold out no firm belief on the matter either way).

When we get into religion, however, there are other complications. It is a very simple matter to find people who honestly believe that they have received some kind of personal revelation or otherwise witnessed events that cannot be explained without resorting to the existance of gods of some kind. Of course such things MIGHT be coincidence, mental error, and the like, but again if we hold to simpler explanations it might actually be possible for the divine to be the simplest (and make no mistake - hardcore atheists who argue that ANY unusual observation is a mental defect are solipsists in disguise).

Thus we get two camps of people with opposite beliefs but both of whom MIGHT be completely reasonable. We can see the necessity of 'might' in there rather quickly, though... a reasonable person would probably understand how others might disagree with him, and many theists and atheists seem unable to.

So it goes.

Answer 3

If you consider the fact that life is not black and white but is various shades of gray, then yes, it is absurd to be so absolute either way. But when you deal with someones faith -their religion shall we say - you are delving in to a very powerful area. Wars begin over this. Telling someone who is strong in their faith that there is no God (or vice-versa to an atheist) can only cause trouble.

Answer 4

Because naturally people are competitive. Values that are installed in us as children are all we know and accept. We have too much pride and to be told something that we know to be true is not is very hard for us to accept. Where as I was raised there are more questions then answers. Nothing is as it seems. That is the beauty and hardship of life.

Answer 5

Yes, you are correct. But we do have to live our lives, so we do have to choose. We know that there is no way to prove that God exists or not so when we adopt the position that the burden of proof is to prove He exists, it is the same as a decision.

Answer 6

Seems to go with the territory. Of course, then, there is the view that even atheism or agnosticism, if practiced honestly - is a religious expression and can be treated respectfully.

Answer 7

maybe he exists (no external proof)

maybe he doesn't exist (no external proof)

I've had many great moments in life, therefore god exists (premise that mentality equates existence)

I've had ups and downs, but I really learned a lot (premise that knowledge equates supernatural being)

I know in my heart that God exists (self-induced belief)

I see the light in my mind, this is why I know God exists (premise that the light is God).

I know that the light in my mind is a reflection of the divine mind, and because the divine mind exists, I both know it in my heart that god exists, as well as seeing it manifest in my daily life as good events, happiness, and love. (premise based on logic, inductive and deductive reasoning, sentimentality, as well as personal conviction).

So as you can see, no matter what "proofs" you have for it, there can still be a slight bit of doubt.

Peace.

Answer 8

Both side of the divided must respect each other's postiton. Religion is quite a sensitive subject.

Answer 9

do no longer seem now yet you have replied your guy or woman question. "I could ask your self why one seems so smugly more desirable to the different on the two area of the fence" because of the fact... "Neither could be completely shown or disprove" nuff stated

Answer 10

it is something that cannot be tested by science.. so it is argued to death.. no way can be certain.. it is really just a personal choice if you believe or not.. to argue about it is dumb