Amazon.com Widgets

Does the lack of evidence for the inexistence of God help prove that God is real?

Asked by: guitarrox
  • Free will is the deciding factor.

    While there is also no hard proof of God"s existence, I believe that the concpet of free will would be void if God simply proved he existed. People would no longer be able to choose. They would just know. You would not want to marry someone simply because they thought you were the only choice they had. You would want to know that they chose you specifically out of all the other option available to them. This makes the concept of love more genuine. It makes choosing God more genuine.

  • Um, is this for real!?

    So because of the lack of evidence in The Flying Spaghetti Monster, that means that He must exsist and we must reach out and touch His noodley appendage? Or how about fairies? There is lack of evidence for the inexeistence of a little fairy flying around unseen and unheard, they must be real! What a ridiculous way of thinking.

  • Since when do lack of proof, prove anything?

    I mean really, when is the last time you saw on the news. "Man put in prison for rape and murder of 10 people, because lack of evidence proved him guilty." This is the most absurd rational I have ever heard of. " Well because we have no proof otherwise he must CLEARLY EXIST! Please listen to that voice in your head when it says you're being stupid. It's Probably right.

  • I am not an atheist, but this argument doesn't make sense.

    I think the whole "evidence" thing is a categorical mistake when speaking about God. God isn't some "part" of the NATURAL world that can even be "evidenced" FOR. Evidence is for the natural world; God is supernatural, for he created the natural. The universe is temporal and material, and could not have created itself. Therefore it had to be created by something immaterial and eternal, i.E. God. Note this is entirely different from any material object atheists might incorrectly compare God to (unicorns, teapots, etc.)

  • By that poor logic, there is a teapot orbiting Jupiter.

    People claiming something exists have the burden of proof to provide evidence. There is absolutely no evidence that any gods exist.
    Claiming that the logical impossibility of proving a universal negative somehow magically supports the existence of a supernatural deity is just nonsensical. Honestly, this sort of bunk is just REACHING.

  • Absolute nonsense it's

    Word play substitute God for pink unicorn .If God does exists he is superbly gifted at hiding in fact he has no equal at hide and seek ,and he is completely hopeless at everything really totally non interventionist . Any way it's surprising people still fall for this marvellous con trick, they demand evidence for everything else in life expect the spirit in the sky.

  • Lack of evidence against something doesn't mean it's right

    The lack of evidence in the inexistence of God doesn't prove that God is real. What does prove that God is real is the abundance of evidence in the existence of God. It would be stupid to say that something's real because you don't have any evidence to disprove it.

  • No no no no no.

    Look, the burden of proof is on the believer. Personally I have no objection to personal belief, unless you proselytize me or other faiths, and try to get your belief to become law. However, you are the one making the positive affirmation, the negative does not have to be proven. If I walk up to you and say, 2+2=5, do you have to prove me wrong? No, you might just to speed things up, but it is my job to prove my position first, because I am posing a positive affirmation. And to the person on the left, does free will really exist?

  • It does not work this way

    When one lacks evidence for something that they propose is real, that lack of evidence does not prove their point. For God, a lack of evidence in relation to his existence works the same way as any other. It is counter-intuitive to believe something more just because proof indicating otherwise does not exist.

  • We meet again, Russell's Teapot

    Because the Christians are trying to argue that God is real, the burden of proof is on them, not those trying to argue against it. For example, say that I (or Bertrand Russell) tell everyone that there's a tiny teapot floating around in space. Does the inability of others to provide evidence for the inexistence of that teapot help prove that the teapot is real?

  • LOL, of course not!

    Anyone that thinks it does has a severe lack of understanding of basic logic.
    Here is a very eloquent analogy that highlights why.
    IMHO this should be required reading everywhere.
    Http://rationalwiki.Org/wiki/The_Dragon_in_My_Garage
    The central claims of religion have to rely on this kind of illogic because they have absolutely zero positive evidence in favour of them.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.