But that doesn't mean we can simply assume that this entity doesn't exist, hence to believe and be absolutely sure that God does not exist is essentially no different than claiming he exists without backing it up with any proof.
deletedover 9 years
I understand what you're saying, but it does not mean choosing to not believe in a God is somehow arrogant for reasons being a lack of evidence.
The difference in those instances are very clear, don't you think? Unicorns and dragons are beings that supposedly roam the Earth and thus can be observed directly which implies that their absence is sign that they do not exist. It's an entirely different thing when you talk about God. I'm not talking about the Christian God whose absence can very well be assumed for obvious reasons. No, what I'm talking about is God as this supreme entity that is above everything, above universe and unfortunately up till now we do not yet have the means and the ability to really determine whether this entity exists or not.
deletedover 9 years
Unicorns and Dragons originate from the Bible FYI.
deletedover 9 years
No, the difference is one version is a fantasy people take seriously, the other is a fantasy people don't take seriously.
To prove something exists, you must have evidence. If you do not have evidence, it is not arrogant to therefore conclude it does not exists.
That's different as those examples are proven to by made up or exaggerated versions
deletedover 9 years
Okay, so it's arrogant to think Unicorns and Dragons don't exist either, because we don't have evidence that they exist and don't have evidence that they DONT exist? good to know. HOGWARTS EXIST EVERYONE and if you think it doesnt you're just arrogant.
deletedover 9 years
Basically, eveything that we can't see or physically/mentally undergo is an example of Schrodingers Cat (sorry for the sloppy writing). As long as we never reveal the truth, God can exist, and not exist, at the same time. If I had to choose yes or no, I would honestly say no, but I'm under the mindset that as long as there is no critical evidence either way, I believe both sides are valid and I choose to remain on the fence. I have my personal opinion, but I'm not about to rule anything out or pick a side until I see the hard evidence.
That is to say, if something doesn't exist you cannot prove it doesn't exist. This applies to virtually everything, which is why you can only be 99.9% certain of anything. We usually go with that 99.9%, though. We don't live our lives constantly questioning gravity and we don't masturbate under the presumption the disappointed souls of our ancestors are watching. I've always found it queer why religion is the exception.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Saying, "God doesn't exist" is ultimately as dogmatic as saying he does. We just don't have the means nor the ability to yet determine whether "God" exists. It's no different from saying extra-terrestrial beings don't exist because we haven't seen them yet.
deletedover 9 years
You should have added an option for "Indifferent" - I honestly am not affected either way.
deletedover 9 years
Normally if someone references "God" with a capital G then they're referring to the god in the Christian Greek scriptures...
God may not be a "holy" spirit, but what we call God is a powerful creature that we know nothing about thinking that he will solve our every problem. Worshipping God is the same as worshipping any other creature.
