I believe in the planet Mars. I believe in Morgan Freeman. I believe in the yucca plant. Even though I have not been to Mars, I have not met Morgan Freeman, and I have not seen a yucca plant, I believe in these things because there is a wealth of evidence for them. I could go into the evidence specifically, but I don't want to waste my time trying to prove something that most likely everyone can already agree upon.
The reason I bring up these examples is to show that I have belief. I can put my faith in the certain existence of many things, provided there is enough indisputable, reliable, tangible, corroborative evidence for them. Therefore, I have difficulty believing in things that lack this sort of evidence and stand upon claims that are disputable, unreliable, intangible, and uncorroborated.
Basically, what we're talking about here is the burden of proof. In short: a burden of proof (at least as far as philosophy and theology are concerned) demands that in order for an idea to be adopted as logical and sensible, the person claiming that idea must prove it to be logical and sensible. It is unreasonable to present an idea and then demand that others disprove it, not having adequately proven it in the first place.
And that's really the point of this post. It's a common theist practice to claim that the notion of God's existence cannot be disproved, and use that as rhetorical leverage. I submit the following video as just one of many examples:
And there you have it. Can you disprove God? Well, no, not really. It's rather difficult to disprove something that cannot be proven in the first place. The common attributes of a monotheistic god involve existing on a level outside of human perception and not making his presence known in modern history. That's sort of religion's focal point: having complete, unmitigated faith despite a lack of tangible, realistic evidence.
If any one religion had compelling enough evidence, there would not be so many religions (or sects, for that matter) and not nearly as many atheists. Therefore, the burden of proof has never been fulfilled by theists. How can an atheist--or, really, why should an atheist--spend his time trying to disprove something that is presented as unfalsifiable? We'd be sent on a juvenile wild goose chase; cue Benny Hill music.
Paraphrased theistic rhetoric:
I believe in an all-powerful, all-knowing being who created the universe. He is a conscious entity who has done the following things [insert biblical text here]. We cannot perceive him, however, and the only personal proof of his existence is witnessed after death. Since you cannot disprove such an entity, that is further reasoning for His existence.
I'm sure that my wording sounds like condescension or at least simplification, but that's the crux of the argument for a god, and it's silly. There's really no better word for it: it's silly. This is the sort of game 5-year-olds play when they want to win an argument through annoyance:
"You can't prove that I ate the cookies. You just think I did."
"Well, if you didn't eat them, then who did?"
"A monster."
"A monster? Well, where is he now?"
"He's invisible."
And despite all evidence to the contrary, as long as a theory can't be disproved, children and theists will think it reasonable.
Besides, mountains of contradictions and falsifications have arisen from the bible, and yet somehow that is not enough to disprove its validity overall. We can say, with near certainty, that the following tenets of Judeo-Christianity are wrong:
- The planet was created in seven days.
- Human beings have existed since the beginning of our planet.
- The Earth is only a few thousand years old.
- The Earth doesn't move.
- All stars were created at the same time.
- The solar system is geocentric.
Because it cannot be disproved.
In that case, I have an invisible-monster-catching-net to sell you for 500 dollars.
