I have been debating with myself one specific point which essentially stems from the fallacy that a lack of evidence is not an evidence of lack. (Note that this a purely a thought experiment, not a claim, and that, on balance, the whole set of arguments against theism outweigh one possible philosophical issue which only relates to intellectual decency.)

Essentially, the fact that there is a lack of evidence to support theistic views does not mean that it's evidence of a lack of God. Imagine God to be something similar to our 21st century minds and technology like the continent of America was to 15th century Europe.

(Side note: To avoid potential nitpicking about this specific premise, I know that America was discovered and rediscovered, but the "official" discovery was an accident as the goal of the expedition was to find India. That some in the 15th century Europe might even have been aware that America existed is a bit irrelevant as society as a whole certainly did not believe it was there, and it's the mindset of those who did not believe which is interesting.)

Now, try to enter this mindset and think that God is in a similar situation. Just like the 15th century mindset and technology could not comprehend the continent of America, the mindsets and technology today is not capable of providing the evidence required to detect or understand a divinity.

Therefore, a God may exist (but it doesn't matter).



Edit: The title was erroneous in it's use of the word "for". This is not an argument for theisim, it's an argument not against theism. Thanks to Kasu for this insight.


Views: 27

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Ah. I get what you are saying now :)

Wow- I'm glad you're still with us. 

I enjoy reading your posts.

Heather, I don't see my previous reply-


"Wow, I'm glad you're still with us"


I'm glad to be here and glad to be still be welcome. :D
I think this can be answered best with dawkin's "teapot" argument. My proxy for this argument = that there could be invisible unicorns that have sex with fairys producing "fairycorns", which are responsible for global warming due to their gratuitous amount of flatulence (which is comprised mostly of CO2 btws). Although it is highly unlikely fairycorns exist, it may be possible that we just dont have the technology or mental capacity to observe them yet.
Personally, I choose to believe in fairycorns rather than accept responsibility for my own actions because its easier :D
Russell's Teapot not Dawkins'

I don't think this would work that well as an argument for theism (I like your point though).

If we think about our evidence for god as the the continent of America to 15th century Europe, then it would only require further scientific/technological advancement to find the answer (or at least as close as we can get to one).

This doesn't work well with theists because they (or at least many) hate science and try to fluff it with religious bull$hit in schools.

If they really want to work with this way of thinking and prove that there really is a god, then many would have to stop being jerks and promote the learning of science in schools and other places. Unfortunately, christianity is all about arrogance and knowing the answers immediately, so I doubt any christian would care for this mindset.

I'm not sure I have good answer for you. This is the way I see it. Doug Stanhope has a great bit about if you have never heard of Christianity and you found the Bible in an old book store and read it. Would you buy up the whole Christianity religion? Most likely not. So if no one had ever heard of God or religion and one day someone told you that there was a being that they couldn't prove to you was there (insert the rest of your favorite God argument). Could you or would you believe it?

This by the way is the same reason that I HATE it when someone says that no matter where they were born they would be a Christian.

One mustn't treat everything one can possibly imagine as equal to the real until it can be, in fact, demonstrated to be equal to the real. There is much each of us can imagine, but very little of what we imagine can be reasonably demonstrated directly or indirectly to be real. If one reacts in the same way to what is only imagined as one does to what is genuinely real, we call it madness. That is what it is. A healthy mind is that which can distinguish one from the other and act accordingly. I work at night. I hear many strange noises in the attic and underneath the house or elsewhere. If I treated all of it as though it were gremlins or trolls up to mischief, I could not work and, in fact, I could not live in my home. If I firmly believe there to be gremlins or trolls and want others to agree, it is reasonable to expect I would present some justification to do so OR they would have to know where to seek it for themselves. If it isn't presented or doesn't present itself, if it doesn't stand up to rational and reasonable examination, they will rightly think me mad or, in any event, dismiss the notion my home has been invaded by gremlins or trolls ... or both. The lack of evidence means they dismiss the claim as a meaningless notion. So it is, thus far, with the claim "god. The situation may or may not change in the future. In the present, there is no good warrant to treat "god" as anything more than fantasy. Is there reason to treat it as equal to "real", "true" or "fact"? Show it. A mere "feeling" isn't enough.
A thought that crossed my mind once when I was reading The Fabric of the Cosmos by Brian Greene was that if the multi-universe theory is true, and there are an infinite number of universes where all possibilities are realized, then there would have to be a universe with a God-type being. And if this God-type being was all powerful, he would have the ability to cross over into our universe. I'm not trying to make any real point here, just something to think about.
I won't argue that a lack of evidence is enough to dismiss God as we would imagine him (or her, or whatever). But I think that dismissing everything beyond what we can measure right now is quite ignorant. It's not a very large stretch of the imagination to envision a being in another universe with access to a 4th dimension. Imagining a God-like character just depends on how far you're willing to let your imagination roam.
Oh, I see what you're saying. I was using the term God a little more abstractly. When I'm arguing God in this sense, I use the word to mean something like creator of us, but not necessarily the creator of the universe. I agree with you for the most part, but I still enjoy letting myself toy with the idea that life could have been seeded on earth, or that there could be a being so superior to myself, that for all intensive purposes, he is godly.




Your kid's friends

Started by Belle Rose in Atheist Parenting. Last reply by GTWilco 6 hours ago. 2 Replies

World conflict and problems other than Israel-Palestine.

Started by Davis Goodman in Small Talk. Last reply by Gallup's Mirror 12 hours ago. 54 Replies

Is Anything Worth Saying Anymore?

Started by Ari E. S. in Small Talk. Last reply by Fragile Nokia 21 hours ago. 5 Replies

Blog Posts


Posted by ɐuɐz ǝllǝıuɐp on July 28, 2014 at 10:27pm 4 Comments

Services we love

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by Dan.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service