• Disagree. I don't believe in no double negatives.
  • There is no proof that God doesn't exist. That is a true statement, but like they said to the Russian dood who flew out to space "See, there is no God, because (whatever his name is) didn't see him". Didn't he know that God was playing peekaboo and hiding behind his back?
  • By that logic any belief is reasonable.
  • Yep and even those non believers call for his help when they hit trouble.
  • There is no evidence either way. do what you will. Just don't knock on my door and ask me to go along with it. I do what I want.
  • If we take it back to Pascal's Wager then I agree.
  • Disagree.. Logically one cannot prove a negative.
  • There is no proof the Easter bunny doesn't exist, in fact, someone left chocolate in my sock drawer this past weekend. Therefore, belief in the Easter Bunny is reasonable. There is no logical difference between this argument and the one in the question, as ridiculous as it may seem. You cannot declare something to reasonably exist because there is no proof of it's negative, to do so is a supremely obvious logical fallacy. Any human being who cites this argument has no business even pretending they are engaging in a rational argument.
  • No. Believing in everything that cannot be proven is ridiculous. The lack of proof is no reason NOT to believe, but it's certainly no reason TO believe either.
  • I disagree. There is no evidence or proof that the celestial teapot doesn't exist, but that does not make belief in it reasonable. The lack of evidence against something does not equal proof for it. - Secondly, I would say that there is evidence against the existence of a Judeo-Christian-Islamic god.
  • Disagree. By the same argument you could say that belief in *anything* you cannot disprove is reasonable. The Flurb, for example. Or an infinite number of Gods, each differing only in the colour of one hair on their heads.
  • God exists in my world
  • Which god would it be reasonable to believe in? There have been several hundred thousand of them pushed upon mankind over the years and certainly hundreds in vogue at present, some with billions of followers--not that popularity makes right. And why is god so regional? Seems that there should be at least one world-wide god if there were a true one. Given all the choices, I'll have to disagree and stick with the null hypothesis that there is no god. Show me some good evidence for one and I'm open to changing my mind.
  • You cannot base your belief on the existence of God on reason or on a reasonable argument. But some still have such a belief, because they base it on faith. And the fact that you do something irrational does not necessary mean that you are crazy.
  • "There is no proof or even evidence that fairies don't exist so belief in them is reasonable." Agree or disagree? Enough said....? OK...for all you fairy believers then! "There is no proof or even evidence that Peter Pan does not exist so belief in him is reasonable." Agree or disagree?
  • "God of the gaps" only serves a purpose for traditional believers, especially the fundamentalists.
  • There is no evidence that space aliens don't exist either so it should be reasonable to believe in them also
  • Disagree believe in something with no proof is to go against our very nature to reason. At lease with theories, there was enough proof out there for someone to come up with the theory.
  • Either way I'm not taking any chances.
  • To believe in someone or something in which there is no proof constitutes faith; and I have faith in God. While that is enough for some people, it's not enough for everyone which is why there are atheists; they require proof.
  • I disagree. Everyone needs to find the belief system that is best for them and some belief systems don't have a deity. Plus, which deity should one then believe in, if one were to agree with your statement? What you are using is something called Pascal's Wager (look it up if you haven't heard of it) which was later thrown out as the way to consider faith in something.
  • Disagree. There is absolutely no credible evidence for a God, the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Invisible Pink Unicorn.
  • disagree. what makes him real anyway. shouldn't there be proof of that also. not just words but real proof.

Copyright 2023, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy