Surely it isn't rationally possible to positively negate the existence of God?

Question

i would say:

atheists are irrational.

agnostics are rational.

and theists are suprarational.

(I'm a theist)

Answer 1

But if one was a atheist what he thinks would be different wouldn't it. It's all relative. One can think he is running faster than the person behind him, but the person behind him thinks he himself is running slower than the person in front. It is what we know that defines us, but as long as there is something we don't know, we are undefined. Because there the universe is infinitely massive and expanding, our finite minds cannot know everything and we cannot negate or totally agree with something's existence.

If you like being a theist, then continue being a theist, because there will always be theists, atheists, agnostics in the world and nothing can change that. Not even killing them off will do it because there will always be revolution and change. It is a force and an equal and opposing force that holds equilibrium together, so do your part as a theist, and have faith in being one.

Answer 2

I was raised as a Catholic, but I'm having doubts now. I'm studying biology in college, and I've taken other sciences and philosophy. I think you're wrong here. You can't be rational, just because you say you are. That is irrational. Theists depend upon blind belief in their religions, and that isn't rational. Agnostics make no commitment, and that is the least rational of the three attitudes you list. It's cowardly. My best friend and her boyfriend are atheists, and they're much more rational than you are here. You really present no rational argument for your beliefs. My atheist friends do have detailed rational arguments. I don't necessarily agree with everything they say, but they have much more rationality than you do. You're childishly trying to boost you own ego by tearing down other people, and that is sinful. My friend's boyfriend has good arguments against any god's existence. You have none for what you say here. You are about to convert me and other intelligent people into atheists with this childish irrational sermon. When I read your submission here and hear my atheist friend, it's easy to see that he is much more rational than you are.

Answer 3

How can it be rational to believe in something that there is abolutely no evidence or proof?

Answer 4

Have you challenged your belief, as most theists don't. If not, then you are in no position to say what is rational and what isn't.

Answer 5

I agree that it isn't possible to prove that God does not exist using arguments acceptable to any rational person.  If that were possible, discussions about religion would be sort of like discussions about Sasquatch or the Loch Ness monster that only a few enthusiasts believe in.  But it also isn't valid to say that atheists are irrational.  That would mean they hold to their belief in the face of overwhelming evidence proving that God exists.  Again, there is no such evidence or we wouldn't still be talking about it.  Theism is still a matter of faith.  Either you have it or you don't.

Answer 6

You can never be certain when it comes to things like this. Alot of people may say God isn't real because it's 'impossible' (impossible being the keyword) to do the things he is apparently able to do. Then again, one could complain that we only think the stories of God are impossible because it's beyond our human nature to have seen or been able to do the work of God. We only say that it's impossible because we're not able to do it and nobody has ever witnessed it and that we've been brainwashed to believe only the things we see in every day life because it's evident. We're not able to "think outside the box". Thus, I believe that maybe God does exist but he can't be proven or evident.

Answer 7

I can't positively refute (Bertrand Russell's example) a china teapot orbiting the Sun, so in that sense I can't positively refute the existence of gods, especially if you don't specify any of their attributes.

I can very positively disprove the existence of an all-powerful and all loving God, unless you also believe that this really is the best of all possible worlds.

Answer 8

You are quite correct - it is not logically possible to prove the non-existance of something.

And scientifically, it is not possible to prove or disprove the existance of God, because if He exists, He is (by definition) *supernatural* ("above nature") and can freely obviate or violate any of the laws that science might use to investigate Him.

However, by these same arguments, it is not possible to disprove the existance of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, Thor, Amaterasu, Ganesh, or any other deity.

The principle of parsimony (also known as "Occam's Razor") states that the best explanation for any phenomenon is the one which introduces the least number of variables.

Invoking God as a factor or explanation violates this notion, unless evidence for His existence is found.

There is no known example of such evidence, therefore the logical conclusion is that there is no God (or Flying Spaghetti Monster, Invisible Pink Unicorn, Thor, Amaterasu, Ganesh, or any other deity)

Answer 9

the wording of your question is over complicated but I will have a crack at it - those who believe in God do so due to faith. Faith is not something which bothers atheists. It is exactly the same as being in love with a person - your best friend might think you are crazy cos he/she just ain't feeling it. Faith is a tough gig, atheists have less of a burden of conscience and therefore a much simpler and easier life; who comes out happier in the end? - we shall see. I don't think it is strictly a question of rational v irrational though. The guy who answered this question first and calls for scientific proof emphasises the lack of faith that epitomises the atheist - he can't see atoms but he believes they are there - funny that.

Answer 10

It would be regarded as rational to believe that you have a hand - but noone can prove it.

Rational does not mean you 'positiviely negate' the existence of God, it means it is the rational conclusion to come to.

If you have never seen, experienced or dealt with a flying squirrel with orange spots and a pink skirt, it is NOT rational to say you don't know if it exists or not - infact it would be regarded as mentally unstable by most people. It IS rational to believe that it DOESN'T exist.

To be weak with rationality the way you imply would mean it would be rational to be unsure if anything exists just because we can't prove it doesn't. Well let me tell you a secret - we can't ever prove that something doesn't exist - but that doesn't mean it's rational to believe everything could exist. For example, a man who wrote a series of books and called them the Bible and the work of God. To believe in God requires a belief in the supremely unlikely. To believe that God doesn't exist requires a belief that a man or men wrote a book and lied.

Define rationality as absolute and everybody should be unsure about everything - since nothing can be proven. Define rationality as a logical decision based on information available to us, and God becomes a fairy tale.

Answer 11

I am an Atheist. I don't believe in God. This is not an active process, arrived at by 'positive negation' (whatever that is).

I don't believe that there are fairies at the bottom of my garden. I am not agnostic about that either. I didn't have to disprove the fairies, nor do I have to disprove the existence of God in order to be an Atheist.

Got it now?

Answer 12

You can't get any more rational than Atheism.

Agnosticism is fence-sitting... that's not the same as rationality.

And theism is believing in something to which there is absolutley no concrete evidence (just myths and parables and a man in a dog-collar).  This is highly Irrational.

Answer 13

In the scientific or mathematical sense, it is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God.  Someone holding any of these philosophical views may be rational or they may be irrational.  If you really care, you'll honestly and objectively evaluate the evidence on your own.  One classical definition of agnosticism is the claim that it's impossible to know (prove) with certainty the existence or non-existence of God.  By that definition, I'd be an agnostic.  If someone offers you the Bible, the Koran, Buddhist writings etc. as evidence related to God, then they bear the burden of proof for the authenticity and validity of those writings.  A prophet generally establishes his credentials with short-term prophecies whose accuracy can be readily evaluated.  The Biblical penalty for claiming to be a prophet, but proved wrong, is death by stoning.  That was a natural limiting factor on prophetic utterances.  All would-be prophets should be held to that standard.

Don't settle for shallow thoughts on this subject.

Answer 14

You're using an incorrect definition of 'agnostic.'  Agnosticism has nothing to do with whether you believe in god or not.  Agnosticism is about whether you believe it's possible to know and understand god.  It goes like this:

Theist: believe god exists

A-theist: does not believe god exists

Gnostic: believe it's possible to know god

A-gnostic: does not believe it's possible to know god

They are two completely separate things.  You are either a theist or an atheist, agnosticism is not a '3rd choice.'  I mean, you either believe in god or you don't.  How can there be a 3rd option there?  The very word 'atheist' means 'not a theist.'  You're either a theist, or you're not a theist, right?  How can you be something different?

Note - atheism does NOT mean 'I believe god does not exist' i.e. a positive assertion that there can be no such thing as god (although that is included as a subset WITHIN atheism.)  It only means you have doubt over whether god exists.  This is what you are calling 'agnostic,' it's really atheism.  'Agnostic' is just what atheists who are afraid to admit they're atheists call themselves.

You can be one of these 4:

1. Gnostic theist - I believe god exists and it is possible for me to understand him (example: christian)

2. Agnostic theist - I believe god exists but it is not possible for me to know him (example: deist)

3. Agnostic atheist - I see no reason to believe god exists, but I also believe it's impossible for us to know him even if he did, so it's possible that he does exist, I just don't see any good reason to believe it right now (example: me :P)

4. Gnostic atheist - I believe if god existed we would know about it, therefore goes positively does not exist (example: 'militant' or 'strong' atheism)

Atheism is the only rational position.  Theism is making a positive assertion that god exists without the evidence to back it up, hence the need for 'faith.'  Any faith-based religion is fundamentally irrational, because with solid, rational reasons for belief faith would no longer be necessary.

The problem I (and most other atheists) have with theism is that the evidence for the existence of god is no greater than evidence for the existence of unicorns or fairies.  No, I can't positively assert god does not exist.  So what?  I also can't positively assert faeries don't exist.

To simon r:

"The guy who answered this question first and calls for scientific proof emphasises the lack of faith that epitomises the atheist"

Yes, you're absolutely right, the atheist lacks faith.

For the life of me, I can't figure out why you think believing in things for no good reason at all is a GOOD thing.

For that's the definition of faith.  If you had a good reason to believe, it wouldn't be faith anymore, it would be reason and logic.

"he can't see atoms but he believes they are there - funny that."

Wrong.  I CAN see atoms.  Scanning tunneling microscopes sure are neat, aren't they?  Here's a picture of some atoms for you - http://www.physics.purdue.edu/nanophys/i...

Here's another - http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/relea...

Anyways, it's possible to logically infer the existence of atoms using empirical measurements.  It has nothing to do with faith.  It's COMPLETELY different than believing in god.  That is, unless you can tell me what instrument is capable of measuring god.

Just because I can't physically SEE something does not mean it takes faith to believe in it.  We do have other senses than sight, and we have instruments capable of measuring things our senses can't

Answer 15

Science asks for proof. Without proof, it is viewed as a lie or non-existent, even if it is the truth.

Because theists claim that God exists, they should prove that he does before claiming that others are wrong.

It may not be possible to positively negate his existence. But is it possible to positively prove his existence?

I'm agnostic, by the way.

Answer 16

The most rational position is agnostic atheism i.e. the majority of atheistic beliefs (people who claim agnosticism as in "they don't know" are actually also atheists, and are in actual fact agnostic atheist).

I'm one of the few atheists who identify with strong atheism (and in my case anti-theism too) where I use the positive assertion that there is no god. This is a much more rational position than theism as there isn't even one single piece of evidence for deities. The same reason I'm not agnostic as to the existence of fairies or goblins. I believe that they don't exist either.

So to sum up.. the most irrational position to take is that of theism. Atheism is the rational position to take (and we're all born atheists anyway) as you are essentially saying there is no good reason to believe in a god and that will remain the case until proof is provided.

It could be argued (poorly) that strong atheism is a little less rational, but only if you say it's irrational to believe in fairies as I've just said.

Answer 17

Are you seriously claiming that anyone who doesn't believe in the same fantasy that you believe is irrational?