"atheists also have a defined answer: "God does not exist." The problem here is that they didn't come to this conclusion based on anything substantial. Typically, it's a logical argument that hasn't been thoroughly tested."
I have to disagree. Atheist’s don’t become atheists because they hear a logical argument.* You don’t know why I am atheist, and no one else does. I don’t know why some random stranger is atheist, but I can guarantee that I didn’t become atheist because I heard a logical argument, and it defiantly was based on something substantial.
Most atheists that I have come across all have different reasons for becoming atheist, but for none of them was it simple. It wasn’t a matter of, “If X and Y then Z.” Believe it or not, it requires ‘soul searching’. It is substantial for all of us, just like the bible is substantial for Christians.
*I can’t speak for every atheist, just the ones that I have come across.
"Agnostic literally means "without knowing" and it refers directly to whether or not God exists. Instead, an agnostic places credence in things that are testable and knowable. That means everything an agnostic believes to be true is based on some sort of empirical evidence, which is independently verifiable by anyone in the world."
The problem here starts with “wether or not God exists.” What is God? Is it the god of the bible? Is it the god of Islam? Perhaps Rah, or Zues. Maybe it is just a ‘supernatural’ being with no ties to humanity at all.
Let us assume this ‘God’ is supernatural, it could be the god of the bible, or Zues, or just some random dude chilling out.
“Instead, an agnostic places credence in things that are testable and knowable.”
Can you test something supernatural? The definition of science, “knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and]
concerned with the physical world.” from Websters New Collegiate Dictionary.
We can’t test something supernatural. If you run an experiment, on anything, you are participating in science, and science only applies to the physical world.
“ That means everything an agnostic believes to be true is based on some sort of empirical evidence.”
Okay, yes, by the definition of science and what you have written, agnosticism looks appealing.
However, lets find a way to test ‘God’. The only real way is for him to become part of the physical world. Meaning, he would ‘show’ himself in one way or another.
If God did come out one day, and revealed himself, then all agnostics would become theists. However, God has never ‘revealed’ himself, and because of that he does not exist in the physical world.
I can now say, “God does not exist in the physical world.” What about the supernatural?
This ‘supernatural’ world, or place, has no proof of existing at all. In fact, the only reason we consider it is because of old barbarians writing stories. There is no proof for a supernatural world, or a supernatural being, therefore I can comfortably say, “God does not exist.”
Now, the above IS a logic argument, but that logic argument didn’t make me become atheist.
Let me reiterate my point, God does NOT exist. The absolute lack of evidence for God shows it. Are you agnostic to the belief of Unicorns? I am taking a bet here, but I say that you don’t believe in unicorns, or fairies, or gnomes, or flying spaghetti monsters. Why not? There is absolutely no evidence what so ever that they exist in this physical world, except for in some fairy tale books. There is also no evidence for this supernatural world, again, except for in fairy tales or in religious scripture, both of which hold no credibility what so ever except in the minds of kids and in the minds of adults who never got over believing in fairy tales.
However, the statement 'God might exist' is absolutely, 100% true. Try arguing with that.
There might be a gnome under my bed, but existing in some supernatural universe. What is wrong with that statement. And no, the answer is not, “Nothing is wrong with that statement.”
