What made you decide "I don't believe God exists" as opposed to "I neither believe nor disbelieve the existence of God since the existence of God is unverifiable"
Since the existence of God is unverifiable, meaning there's no way of knowing if it's actually true or false, why aren't you agnostic? Why have you chosen an irrational, illogical, foolish conclusion as opposed to the rational standpoint?
For those of you who say "Well I don't believe in Zeus, FSM, or [any other thing you make up to make yourself feel better and increase your faith in atheism]" this argument is 100% illogical, irrational, and unreasonable. The existence or non-existence of these things have nothing to do with the existence of God, if someone is talking about whether or not the theory of relativity for instance was true and somone kept saying "Yeah well I don't believe in the geocentric theory, or the aether or any other completely unrelated theory that people don't believe in now" it wouldn't make any logical sense, it would just be a clever way of avoiding the actual argument (which is the theory of relativity)
For those of you who are saying "well it just doesn't seem true, it sounds like a fantasy, fictional, like something made up" thats also irrational, an argument from personal incredulity or "well it just doesn't sound true, so it must be false"
For those of you who say "The existence of God is unlikely" this is false since there's no way of measuring the likelihood of the existence of God, since its unverifiable, and an absence of evidence when there should not be evidence present doesn't indicate unlikelihood, its like someone saying "There wasn't any shred of evidence that quarks existed in the 1930s, so that meant it was unlikely that quarks existed, even though the existence of quarks was unverifiable during that time period and an absence of evidence when evidence should not be present doesn't indicate unlikelihood"
So what prevents you from saying the existence of God is unknown or unverifiable? Is it because that statement in itself makes it seem as if God could possibly exist?
Since the existence of God is unverifiable, meaning there's no way of knowing if it's actually true or false, why aren't you agnostic? Why have you chosen an irrational, illogical, foolish conclusion as opposed to the rational standpoint?
For those of you who say "Well I don't believe in Zeus, FSM, or [any other thing you make up to make yourself feel better and increase your faith in atheism]" this argument is 100% illogical, irrational, and unreasonable. The existence or non-existence of these things have nothing to do with the existence of God, if someone is talking about whether or not the theory of relativity for instance was true and somone kept saying "Yeah well I don't believe in the geocentric theory, or the aether or any other completely unrelated theory that people don't believe in now" it wouldn't make any logical sense, it would just be a clever way of avoiding the actual argument (which is the theory of relativity)
For those of you who are saying "well it just doesn't seem true, it sounds like a fantasy, fictional, like something made up" thats also irrational, an argument from personal incredulity or "well it just doesn't sound true, so it must be false"
For those of you who say "The existence of God is unlikely" this is false since there's no way of measuring the likelihood of the existence of God, since its unverifiable, and an absence of evidence when there should not be evidence present doesn't indicate unlikelihood, its like someone saying "There wasn't any shred of evidence that quarks existed in the 1930s, so that meant it was unlikely that quarks existed, even though the existence of quarks was unverifiable during that time period and an absence of evidence when evidence should not be present doesn't indicate unlikelihood"
So what prevents you from saying the existence of God is unknown or unverifiable? Is it because that statement in itself makes it seem as if God could possibly exist?
Last edited:
, this is your trademark