This is in response to the column, "God could exist despite no evidence" (Nov. 1) by John Keisling.
Keisling attempts to prove that God "could" exist by denouncing two views he believes to be held by atheists. These views are "that lack of evidence implies non-existence" and ". that lack of evidence makes it very unlikely that God exists." I agree with him on the first one, that the lack of evidence does not always mean non-existence. There are many things we have not discovered yet, but that does not mean that they don't exist. However, I have to disagree with him on the second issue. It is true that lack of evidence means that something is unlikely to be fact, though it doesn't rule out the possibility that it could be true.
I consider myself to be agnostic and do not presently believe in a God or gods because of the lack of evidence. Keisling implies that this is incorrect and that I am only looking at reality ". from our perception and our experience as humans." Well, yes, I am! I am a human (as far as I know) and I live in a human-dominated society and world. Everything I see, smell, taste, touch, and learn is done as a human from a human's point of view. Sure there are probably many things that are unimaginable or inconceivable to my human perceptions and experiences, but I cannot have my life revolve around them. I have to live my life by human perception.
Before the quark was discovered, I managed to live my life without it. I thought a quark could be possible but I was not about to base my thinking, judgments, and decisions on the chance it could be true. I had to base my thinking on the known facts and evidence of the universe in which I exist.
There is a possibility that a God or gods "could" exist. Yet from what I have seen as a human I am not willing to base my thinking, judgments, and life decisions on the possible existence of a God.
Read Next Article