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: 26

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Womp womp womp....


Ok, where to begin. First of all, there is no evidence for god. None, zero, zilch, nada, big giant goose egg nothing. If there were evidence for God, faith would be a moot point. You believe (operative word) that certain lack of evidence against a position is evidence for your position. In short, because no one knows that means you are right. This is special pleading, it is a fallacy and I suggest you look them up before you get torn to shreds on these boards.


Second, the fact that science has yet to explain (again, operative words) how certain phenomena have come about that does not mean that there is no scientific explanation sans a divine hand. To quote Tim Minchin, "throughout history, every mystery ever solved has turned out to be... not magic." Also, I am willing to bet that a vast majority of what you posit science cannot explain has in fact been explained by science, or at least there are fairly good ideas about how it came about to happen.


Third, there is not a certain burden of proof to be laid on theists, the whole burden of proof rests on theists. As a non-believer in your invisible friend it does not fall on me to prove you are lying, just as it would not fall on you to prove the same of me if I insisted that I could fly.


Fourth, arguments from causality are so weak that I cannot begin to reason how people still rely on them. If you want a good run down of what I would write here for the 10,000th time please refer to the essay by Percy Bysshe Shelley in this e-book here. Not only is PBS one of my favourite English poets his wife wrote Frankenstein (how cool is that?).


Last, is your awful argument about morality. The plurality of objective moral arguments, many of which are contradictory to others, and many exist within societies not exposed to Christianity until much later defuses this argument. Ancient Chinese societies had perfectly ordered and moral societies which operated just fine without YHVH.


The reason that theists do a poor job intellectually defending belief is because warrantless faith in unprovable claims is simply not intellectually defensible. The only way intelligent people have defended faith is the use of what I like to call "pretzel logic" and cognitive dissonance, confounding arguments to the point where contradictions no longer appear as such and disregarding evidence which might undo their weak explanations.

Why do they never come back to play after I lay it out point by point like that?
Because you are a big scrooge that goes around telling all gawd's children that there is no Santa Claus - and then you explain how their parents put the presents under the tree, the physical impossibility of visiting every house in the world in one night and of Santa fitting down a chimney, the paradox of homes that do not have chimneys, the fact that we've been to the north pole and his workshop is absent, and that the whole concept was only created as a pre-indoctrination in preparation for Christian indoctrination.

Did the theist poster delete his posts and leave? I think you guys scared him off.


Either that or I have somehow managed to tune out theist arguments so well that I have started to not see their posts at all... 

Argh. Yeah, it looks like he took his ball and went home. I hate that because it looks like we are talking to an imaginary person.

Perhaps we were..... maybe it was god. hahaha

He came. Revealed the "truth" to all us heathens then vanished and left no trace of himself. 


Given all possibilities, that is obviously the most logical one to jump to. 

You know, even some sort of conscious cause for the universe does not constitute a god.  At least when I believed I had faith there was a real, caring, powerful god who heard my prayers and protected me.  He was a mighty creator who wasn't just everywhere but the very concept of where in conscious form.  He was the ultimate judge who wasn't just all knowing but the very concept of intellect in loving form.  He was the foundation of morality who wasn't just all powerful but the very source of warmth that glowed.


The problem is that the above contradicts itself in at least a dozen different ways.  We know for an absolute fact that there is no god.  Now if you have come here to offer some watered down version designed to keep the rational mind from gagging then please get explicit and call it a conscious prime mover theory or some such thing - but leave 'god' out of it because that concept is self-refuting.

I like that DNA bit.

This is why many atheists such as myself identify as Agnostic-Atheist. Because you can't prove nonexistence. 


Burden of Proof. Anyone making a claim something exists has the burden of providing evidence for its existence. Technically, this means if you lack a claim then you do not have a burden to prove nonexistence. It is impossible to prove something does not exist.


Example:  Russell's Teapot. 


I found a relevant video that should explain to you further. It contains many answers to the questions you bring up in your post. Very excellent video.



"I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden."

-Richard Dawkins, The God Deulsion


Unless something can be categorically ruled out (which is only a hypothetical state), it is not impossible. I did warn that it was a philosophical gedanken experiment. :)

And thanks everyone for building my arsenal of arguments.




Blog Posts


Posted by Quincy Maxwell on July 20, 2014 at 9:37pm 16 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