Atheists, would you agree with the following statement?
"If theists have no evidence for the existence of God, then it is at least more probable than not that God does not exist"
- the_oracleLv 67 years agoFavorite Answer
Atheist don't believe in god, not just because there is no evidence of god, but because they believe there is evidence to the contrary.
So basically, no evidence of god doesn't make it probable that there isn't one alone.
- EthslanLv 57 years ago
Well I am not an atheist but I do not agree. Simply because of the question, how do u define evidence? If a person say that he had a dream about running from someone, what evidence is there to support that he had that dream? All evidence do not have to be defined by the 5 physical senses. In fact the spiritual is not defined by the 5 physical senses. Yet this is the evidence that people want to support existance of God. The problem is that experiencing God & the spiritual is an individual & personal experience that is unique to the individual. The way I may experience him may not be the way u may experience him. But the complete human is an amalgamation of both the spiritual & the physical, & while the 5 physical senses relate to the physical aspect of man, we have what is known as a 6th sense which is tuned to the spiritual side. The problem is that this 6th semse is under-developed & under-used in many of us. We depend so much now on our 5 physical senses that the 6th sense is severely suppressed & we believe that it do not exist or that the entities related to that 6th sense do not exist. We want evidence of the spiritual to fit into the limited bounderies of the 5 senses...even tho we well know that these 5 senses cannot even relate to many of the physical things (far less the spiritual) that exist around us & that we have to supplement these senses with artificial man-made enhancements to become aware of the unseen, unheard world that exist around us.
Still atheists & other incomplete & un-informed people demand evidence of the spiritual in forms that we can see, hear, taste, touch or smell. And this from people who live now in a world so far removed from nature that it isnt funny.
And that is why I question how do u define the word "evidence". I guess that the evidence that atheist seek is in a form that a person can see or hear or touch. But trillions of people since the creation of man testifying about the personal experiences they have had with God surely cannot be evidence. Looking outside & seeing the sun, the moon, the animals, the fishes, the birds, humans exactly as they were said to be created is not evidence. But believing in a process that no living person has ever seen even tho it is supposed to be an ongoing & continuous process is classed as evidence & accepted as truth.
- Anonymous7 years ago
I think many of them would agree. The confusing thing here is how a small percentage of atheists insist that they know for 100% certain that the Christian God does not exist. (While at the same time, of course, most Christians insist they know for 100% certain that the Christian God does exist.)
Many theists claim to have experienced PERSONAL revelation as their evidence for the existence of God, but do not claim this is evidence that can be shared with others.
- 鵲 MagpieLv 67 years ago
Depends on a) the god, and b) the theists.
The People of Vanuatu have lots of proof that their god exists--in fact no reasonable person in the world would argue that he doesn't. So for those theists, your statement couldn't be wronger.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Anonymous7 years ago
The lack of evidence does not disprove the existence of a deity. Scientific evidence does however disprove the claims of religion
- CharlieLv 57 years ago
Sure. More probable sounds about right. Not 100% but more probable, definitely.
- NousLv 77 years ago
Academia states that in the absence of any sort of evidence of the existence of something it must be deemed not to exist until verifiable evidence is found - thus god is held not to exist pending some sort of verifiable evidence.
The bible is what is called "Faction" A fictional story set in a factual time and place. Thus the time, place and real historical characters are all correct but the fictional characters and stories are not!
There is not one single mention of Jesus in the entire Roman record - that is right - not one! At the same time as he was supposed to have been around there were a number of Jews claiming to be the messiah - all of whom are well recorded!
There is not a single contemporary record from any source and even the bible mentions of him like all other references were not written until many years after his supposed death!
He was supposed to have been a huge problem to the Romans and produced wonderful miracles but still not one contemporary record?
Even the bible mentions of him like all other references were not written until many years after his supposed death!
Pilate is recorded in the Roman record as a somewhat lack luster man but no mention of a Jesus, a trial or crucifixion that would surely have been used to make him look brighter!
At best he was an amalgam of those others but almost certainly never existed!
Not one word of it is contemporary with the period and was not written until several hundred years after the period the story is set in!! How did the apostles write their books more than a hundred years after they would have been dead?
Please realize that those claims for the Old historians are worthless since they were not even born until long after everyone in the stories would have been so long dead!
Josephus AD 37 – AD 100
Tacitus AD 56 – AD 120
Suetonius - 69 – 130 AD
Pliny the Younger, 61 AD – 112 AD
Justin Martyr (Saint Justin) AD103–165 AD
Lucian - AD 120 -180 AD but he was hostile to Christianity and openly mocked it.
Pamphilius AD 240-309 AD
Eusebius AD 263 – 339 AD
Photius AD 877 – 886 AD
Thallus - But there are no actual record of him except a fragment of writing which mentions the sack of Troy [109 BC] Showing that he was clearly not alive in biblical times.
Some even try to use Seneca. 4 BCE – 65 CE but as a Stoic Philosopher he opposed religion yet made not a single mention of a Jesus or Christianity!
Even funnier is trying to claim Celsus AD ? – 177 AD Who said that Jesus was a Jew who’se mother was a poor Jewish girl whose husband, who was a carpenter, drove her away because of her adultery with a Roman soldier named Panthera. She gave birth to an illegitimate child named Jesus. In Egypt, Jesus became learned in sorcery and upon his return presented himself as a god.
- 7 years ago
PLEASE, WE HAVE SO MUCH PROOF IT IS NOT EVEN FUNNY . LOOK:http://www.reasons.org/articles/articles/fulfilled...
ALSO TWO FORCES ARE FIGHTING OVER YOU SOUL /YOU HAD BETTER WATCH THIS:
- Anonymous7 years ago
Hirohito was the god of Japan, he was real. We have proof. As for the rest of them, fairy tales and scare tactics and folklore.
- TesseractLv 47 years ago