Why believing in something because you can’t disprove it is irrational.

I’m a little bit tired of seeing this claim – that you cannot disprove a God.

How can you know if something is unknowable? To assert that statement, you’d have to know of every available piece of information in the universe – which no human has, given our limited viewpoint, and you would have to know that among this complete knowledge no evidence exists to disprove your claim. This is extremely problematic thinking. Do you see why it is not a logical , valid reason to believe in the existence of God?

Also, in order to make this claim, you have to acknowledge that the existence of a God has NOT been asserted as truth, because no one can know (or so you say), and by doing this you are willingly entering into a belief that you rationally should not believe(because there is no evidence), but do on the basis that no one can disprove it.

The problem with this logic is that it apply to ALL ideas of God(s) across different cultures, and since each religion asserts that it has the truth and that the others do not, this is impossible to use as a good, logical reason. Therefore, this is not a good reason to believe in God.


About thatcatkatie
I came to this site to discuss my beliefs, and yours too, and hopefully learn some things from my fellow human beings.

4 Responses to Why believing in something because you can’t disprove it is irrational.

  1. I hope they mean that to say there is no god takes as much faith as saying that there is a god.
    I doubt it, but I hope that’s what they mean.
    You’re right, it’s not a good reason to believe in God.

    • thatcatkatie says:

      It’s still pretty close to this line of thinking, even if that is what you mean – and still not exactly justifiable. Religious people very often seem to fail to realize that their faith in religion is VERY different from the sort of faith people feel in other things, especially since thinking outside of religion – which is really just another word for a category of the supernatural – usually has some amount of good evidence or logical discourse.

  2. M. Rodriguez says:

    I say Yes, I can disprove Prove your God.

    Tell me which God I should believe in, and I’ll tell you why he doesn’t exist. Otherwise the way I see it, the person is playing theological non-congnitisim meaning.= Theological Non-Cognitivism is the cognitive stance that all religious language is purposely vague and cognitively meaningless. It also pleasantly includes that any talk or debate of God is vague and meaningless until “God” is defined.


    Thats my mindset on the whole thing

    • thatcatkatie says:

      It’s true, most religions define what or who their god is differently. However, most of the reasons for not believing in one God is somewhere along the same lines for not believing in any other – so if someone thinks they have a good reason not to believe the Muslim god is the true one, why should a Christian god be taken more seriously?
      And you’re right, holy texts tend to be vague enough where it counts, and that’s why (personally) I think that it’s easy for religious people to dodge the inconsistencies in their own religion’s teachings. It also enables them to ignore how fiercely these teachings conflict with scientific findings.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: