God's existence and Atheism.?

Question

One may argue that there is no possibility of God's existence. A rebuttal to that claim comes readily to mind and it's as follows:



Premise (1): all humans gain knowledge of external things from sensation (hearing, sight, touch...).

Premise (2): not all external things are available to us to know them.

From 1 and 2 I conclude that there is a possibility of God's existence.



If all that exists was available to our sensation and god was not among all that exists then it may seem less blameworthy to say that possibilities of God's existence are none. But since that is not the case it is culpable to claim impossibility (atheists) or assertion of the existence of God (believers).



If we put all the evidence that indicates an intelligent designer and creator of the universe in one pan of a balance and the evidence that supports Atheism in the other, they may as well be equal.

However, based on the premises above, we will never reach the absolute truth in this matter in our reality simply because this is a metaphysical issue and a tangible proof is not feasible.



Now that we've established that there is a possibility it follows that it is also possible for all warnings of punishments and afterlife to come to pass. There is a probability no matter how small it is you can’t argue it does not at all exist. (Refer always to my premises and the conclusion)



An atheist is someone who holds that god does not exist despite the obvious aforementioned possibility. So an atheist is someone who takes a risk (it is a risk because if there is a chance that God exists there is also a chance of punishment in case of disbelief). And someone who chooses to take a risk no matter how small it is lacks wisdom.



To clarify why the lack of wisdom in an atheist I present the following analogy which is in accordance with the context: say you find yourself having to choose between 2 paths in some place (place representing life here). One path had a sign that says risk and the other had a sign that says risk free. And you know they both lead to the same destination and they are both equal in distance. Which one do you choose? Wisdom here suggests that one must choose the risk free path. It’s an easy choice. Both paths lead to the same destination anyway and they are both equal in length.



An atheist is someone who chooses the second path that has a risk therefore an atheist is unwise

My definition of wisdom: the ability to distinguish or judge between right and wrong and choosing the RIGHT when one must choose one or the other.



Conclusion:

Because an atheist is unwise I draw that any argument against god's non-existence offered by an atheist is questionable since as I demonstrated earlier an atheist is necessarily unwise.

Answer 1

Yawn.

Answer 2

You begin with a flawed premise. An atheist does not make the positive claim that 'no god exists'. An atheist is a person who does not believe any gods exist.



You are thinking of a 'strong atheist', a person who actively denies that any gods exist. But without evidence that 'no god exists', that person would not have met the burden of proof, and the claim can be ignored. So you are correct, a strong atheist is unwise because they are making claims they can't support.



Of course, the burden of proof works the other way. Anyone who claims a god exists must provide evidence that their god exists, otherwise, their claim can be ignored. Just like the strong atheist, a god-believer is unwise because they are making claims they can't support.



As for the 'weak atheist' (atheists who disbelieve without denying the existence of any gods), they are in the clear. They don't have to believe in any gods because the Burden of Proof has been met. Also, the weak atheist (also called agnostic atheist) does not have to *disprove* any gods because the Burden of Proof is on the person claiming their god exist. Unlike religious people and strong atheists, an agnostic atheist is wise because they aren't making claims they can't support *and* they do not believe claims that are made without evidence.



Notice how I did all of that without any unnecessary analogies?

Answer 3

The only answers we can guarantee to be right are with things that have existed or happened since the start of humanity. Anything more can be argued to be circumstantial because there is no eye witness account of what happened before. Scientists put together evidence from what they can find and theorise about anything else.

If an archaeologist dug up a human skeleton carbon dated to be older than any ape it would throw that side of evolution out the window. Creationists will tell you that 'similarities' between breeds and species at as high as 99% shared DNA is still not proof that we are all from one form of life. To be put in the same category as a cabbage is ridiculous and that is exactly what a lot of evolutionists say. They also say we all originate from one initial life form that died millions of years ago and we can't find the DNA from it because the DNA has died out in fossilisation.

To put the question straight, why shouldn't everybody decide for themselves what happened before we were around?

Answer 4

Except your whole argument is flawed because it is based on a logical fallacy- the Strawman.



See, atheists aren't claiming there is no possibility of gods. We simply lack a belief in them due to a lack of evidence. End of list.



Also, your "Premise 2" is a Bare Assertion fallacy- you simply state that it must be true with no evidence to support it and expect the argument to rest on that. Not how logic works, skippy.



Then, of course, you have the Shifting of the Burden of Proof fallacy. The Burden of Proof rests on the person making the positive claim- in this case, that a god exists. Therefore, it is truly unwise to make a claim that a god exists when you have no objective, verifiable evidence to back up that claim. Atheists, on the other hand, aren't making a claim. They are just discarding your claim as having failed to meet its Burden of Proof.



Not to mention you actually throw in Pascal's Wager to boot. How many fallacies were you planning on putting up tonight?

Answer 5

Which is why you presumably devote all your time to believing in all gods that have ever been believed to exist throughout human history, y'know, because not doing so would be a risk, right?



Or does your gibberish only apply to the belief in the specific god which you've been raised to believe in?

Answer 6

complete blowhard. There are advantages to being an atheist that a believer would possibly not have and the prospect could desire to be weighed by way of the advantages. ultimately it comes all the way down to what we value; I value the genuine, tangible advantages presented by way of being unfastened from religious ideas, and you value your state of being in the afterlife. properly I surely do not care approximately what it is like in the afterlife if there is one, there is not any way for us to comprehend what a god could do with us, what makes you think of God isn't malicious? He confident looks like it. possibly absolutely everyone is going to hell purely with the aid of fact God's a great jerk. No determination has a probability-unfastened determination and absolutely everyone who believes there could desire to be one in each of those element could desire to be rather unwise.

Answer 7

Premise (2): not all external things are available to us to know them. Then how is that you know about god in first place, if 2 is true, then you should not even know about it

Answer 8

The thing is, the amount of real, actual evidence for any deity here that we can access is 0. The amount of possible evidence is equal to the amount of unicorns living under your dresser, but that vanish if you try to look at them-We can't know, but that's no reason to assume that they exist.

Answer 9

I`ve got a box of gods for sale, all credit cards accepted.

Answer 10

All levels of wrong. You receive a grade of F, and are not allowed to advance to the next course.

Answer 11

"Premise (2): not all external things are available to us to know them." Such as? Sorry, your entire argument just collapsed because your theory is wrong.

Answer 12

So your saying believe in it just in case it is true, a person can't make their brain believe in something that they can't believe.

Answer 13

You don't have to go into any long litany. Atheism is predicated on the philosophy of materialism. This philosophy is a faith based affirmative assertion that has never been objectively proven. Atheists demand proof of God, turn it right back at them and demand proof of materialism...

Answer 14

Very nicely balanced argument. However.......what's your question?