by Currie Jean

Created on: February 10, 2008   Last Updated: January 18, 2009

No one can disprove god. The question is, are people justified in believing in him?
It is not 'disproof of god' that most atheists claim to have, nor do they need it to present a sound case against god. In the absence of absolute proof, it is the reasonableness of a belief that is important.

Many religious apologists point out that the existence of god can not be proven or disproven, which is true. The apologist then moves on to claim that because god's existence cannot be proven, the idea of evidence doesn't apply to the issue; in other words, that a disbeliever can't claim to know whether or not god is real, and this is where 'faith' sweeps in for the win.

Agnostics, also, fall prey to this argument - they say that since we can't prove or disprove god's existence, an opinion on the matter should not be formed. This is wrong. When proof is absent, an acceptable, non fence-sitting position can still be found.

It is a common mistake to find that absence of proof about the issue of god makes belief a viable option. This mistake seems only to apply in the favor of theological arguments, as well. Imagine if it applied everywhere!

People have all sorts of beliefs. They can believe anything they want, but that doesn't make the belief justified. Evidence is required to justify a belief, especially if that belief is an extraordinary one.

Bertrand Russell, an atheist philosopher of generally modern history, employed an argument that is now well-known by educated atheists as "Russell's Teapot." Mr. Russell said that he could claim that a teapot is now orbiting the planet Mars. We can't prove the statement true, nor can we disprove it.

An invisible teapot orbiting Mars. No proof, no disproof. No pictures, no radar, no discovery. Is Mr. Russell justified in believing that the teapot is there?

Of course not. In this case, the teapot is just plain made up. Evidence, like a telescope's photograph, would be required to prove that the teapot is there; and if the evidence is insufficient (say the photo was faked), there is no reason to believe in the teapot. This 'evidentiary minimum' is required of people in almost all cases. If an acquaintance told you, in apparent panic, that Godzilla was presently ripping apart the eastern area of your city, wouldn't you want further evidence? I hope you would turn on the news before believing him blindly. If you did the latter, you would be gullible, and your friend would probably laugh at you for being tricked by his joke.

It is common practice to require acceptable amounts of evidence in order to believe a claim in everyday life. In addition, the more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinarily convincing the evidence needs to be. I don't think a claim can get more extraordinary than, "There's a physically indescribable being here but not here, inside time when affecting human life but outside time when criticized, who is all-powerful, all-loving, and all-knowing. He created the entire vast universe, but cares more about humanity than anything else."

It takes more than a book of old stories and an institution headed by rich, powerful people to convince me, AND to justifiably convince you, that such a being exists.

Don't be gullible. Demand better evidence.

Learn more about this author, Currie Jean.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.