A good case against God

[Jeffonthenet]

Also, if you are defining "weak atheism" the same way as I define agnosticism--simply as not knowing if God exists, we may not disagree here on anything but terminology.

Many people said this: atheist is a person that lacks the belief in god, agnostic is about knowledge, it says we can't know if X can be believed. This makes you a gnostic theist, since you claim to know that god exists. Either you believe in a god, or you don't, is that hard to understand? The main point is that you claim that god exists, its your burden to show us that such exists, in a surefire way we all can know it. Since the dawn of man, its been a futile quest.

I don't care what you call yourself or me… I believe, like many many other Christians based on the personal experience of God. Yet personal experience is by definition unsharable, so I cannot communicate to you that experience, I can only testify to you based on my experience. Why am I obligated to prove God in this case?

I would also say in an ultimate sense that there is evidence for God, it is just non-verbal--experiential or intuitive. I believe if one seeks God from a pure heart, one will find out at some point in their life if God exists.

I would also say that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence only in a case in which we should expect to have more evidence than we do

Well, your extraordinary god requires extraordinary evidence, or why is it hiding? Ah yes, people with pure heart, whatever that means. I guess you mean people that think exactly like you... typical. Your arrogance is showing.

[/quote]

Do you disagree with the principle--the absence of evidence is evidence of absence only in a case in which we should expect to have more evidence than we do--or not?

I also disagree that the existence of God is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. God's existence has been, conversely, taken for granted up until the enlightenment.