There are three possible positions with regard to the proposition that there exists a god or god. Atheists argue against the existence of god, theists argue for the existence of god, and agnostics argue that the proposition has not been proven true or false. Each position is the product of a perfectly rational reasoning processes based on different assumptions about logic itself.

Theists suggest that not only is the god hypothesis a reasonable one, because of the evidence of creation all around us, but that this amounts to such overwhelming and conclusive evidence that it is therefore correct to conclude that god exists.

Agnosticists suggest that the proposition in question, i.e. that god exists, cannot be proven true or false, and that therefore, logically, we should neither conclude it to be true or false. But rather we should wait for evidence one way or the other.

Atheists counter both of these positions. They are suggesting that the proposition in question should not be afforded the status of a reasonable hypothesis to begin with, which counters the theists. Then, they argue, if something is not a reasonable hypothesis, because there is literally no evidence to support it, then you should simply conclude that it is false, which counters the agnostics.

Learn more about this author, Darian Peters.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

---

Add your voice

Know something about The case for atheism?
We want to hear your view. Write now!