Some atheists finally admit the logical absurdity of stating “There is no God”, but attempt to weasel out of the problem by claiming practically we can state there is no God (or, almost certainly there is no God), because they don’t have proof meeting their requirements. Here’s one attempt at such an argument — see if you can spot the logical error before reading the answer.
Logically speaking a general claim “god exists” can’t be refuted (until there are specifics and I have some idea what “god” is supposed to represent). But from a practical reality standpoint of what is and what is not, it’s perfectly reasonable to assert something does not exist in the absence of any evidence for the existence of that item. In other words, if I say to you “Grab my notebook off the coffee table for me,” and you look and there is a mug and a coaster, but no notebook on the table, it is absolutely reasonable for you to respond, “There is no notebook on the table.”
Nobody would assert that simply from an absence of evidence you are being illogical to conclude the notebook isn’t there—simply because there is no evidence of a notebook on the table.
Get it? Read it again.
Yet another atheist logical error. To use the notebook-and-table example to reference God would have to go something like this:
- “Grab my notebook”.
- “There’s no notebook on the coffee table” (It must not exist).
- “No, it’s on the office desk upstairs”.
- “Sorry, I hadn’t considered that”.
Of course, the answer comes from a place you failed to consider, or exists outside your knowledge. Using the notebook argument with God is quite different, as God can exist throughout the entire cosmos, while the notebook doesn’t — it’s not the same argument at all. Using limited knowledge to falsely extrapolate to the whole (which you didn’t have knowledge of) is a logical error (unless you assume uniformitarianism).
Once again, atheism’s position comes from faith, not logic or critical thinking. You can believe it, but no amount of verbal twister changes the claim into a logical statement. Atheism (“There is no God”) requires faith. You can believe there is no God, fine. But to state it as fact? And belittle those not accepting your dogma, presuppositions, and faith? All while claiming superior intellectual and logical skills (while holding a logically absurd position)?
Atheists miss the irony.
Some atheists are really agnostic — they don’t have a reason to believe in God. Those people exist on reasonable logical ground the atheist lacks, even if their conclusion is faulty. But you can’t be a true atheist and at the same time expound on your logic and intellectual prowess — it’s a contradiction.
If atheists could just admit their position comes from faith, without proof, and based on hope (not critical thinking), we could progress to more interesting questions.
But if you follow the new atheists it’s not likely to happen, as they continue blissfully unaware of their contradictions and logical blunders inherent in their position, all while making fun of others and claiming atheists hold the intellectual high ground, while at the same time clinging to an unprovable, illogical dogma.