Fundamental Atheism and the Conflicting Ideas Problem.

I agree. I've just read the thread. I think someone mentioned that there should be evidence of God,(as we would expect it) and so lack of this evidence would mean absence of God.But if God exists, would we expect that he created the universe?Doesn't the universe then become evidence?Anyone can make any suggestion about what God should do but logically his existence won't depend on this.For example, if an atheist said that all the hungry should be fed, to evidence God, and the theist said that the universe existing simply evidences God, then God's existence surely doesn't depend on what we think he should do, or how he should evidence it. Because it's subjective/relative.A true example of this is when an atheist sees a homeless person, he says "surely there is no God", and the homeless man says, "there is too". Well, who's right? Does God's existence really depend on evidence? Why should a subjective and highly limited human being decide on what evidences God? God is!I think you might apreciate this logical fun RAZD. I enjoyed your posts.I think the agnostic, is logically in the correct position. To say "I don't know" is extremely healthy, but to say "I know" is to be more arrogant, or rather cocky. I'm the latter I suppose, in that I have said in times past, "I know God exists". Infact I know, without evidence. One can know things without evidence.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 04-11-2005 06:58 PM

Yah, okay fair enough. I concede I believe I know. But if I didn't care about my own faith then I'd be agnostic or Pantheist, as logically I feel I could not attend any other position.