There is no evidence of a god, because evidence of a god is impossible. There is enough evidence of the validity of the law of identity, however, to know that things that are contradictory, metaphorical, undefined or supernatural cannot manifest. I concede that things we do not now know about can exist, but nothing worthy of the name god. Unwillingness to state this plainly shows an inappropriate adherence to skepticism, which contradicts itself as an absolute.
Arguing, as an atheist, that you know that god is possible is kind of funny. And erroneous.
It is conceited to believe that you know for a certainty that there is no godlike entity when as a human being you cannot possibly understand the universe fully. Atheism, in its own way, is just a much a faith as any religion, because in essence its followers have to believe in something without proof.
What proof of God existance are we missing????
There is none. But there isn't any proving that a god, in one form or another, doesn't exist either. That's the gist of it. That's why I think that agnosticism is the superior thought process because it doesn't claim to believe in anything that it can't prove. Maybe, it's just my 'show me state' attitude coming through though. ;)
No, but I don't exclude the possibility of there being something out there. I certainly don't believe in any faith system that exists right now. I try live my life as if there is someone watching me just for moral purposes. But I can't believe in anything that I can't prove.
Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown or unknowable. Agnosticism can be defined in various ways, and is sometimes used to indicate doubt or a skeptical approach to questions. In some senses, agnosticism is a stance about the difference between belief and knowledge, rather than about any specific claim or belief. In the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities, whereas a theist and an atheist believe and disbelieve, respectively. In the strict sense, however, agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify the belief that deities either do or do not exist. Within agnosticism there are agnostic atheists (who do not believe any deity exists, but do not deny it as a possibility) and agnostic theists (who believe a deity exists but do not claim it as personal knowledge).
Maybe agnostic atheist is more accurate then.
Reality exists. You don't need to prove it. It is self-evident. And those that will not accept that as fact are lost. The non-existence of god is just one small step away. If you can understand the implications of the law of identity, you will not need additional proof to be certain.
Omniscience is not possible or necessary for certain knowledge. Just because there is more to learn, doesn't make it possible to find impossible things. Nothing will ever demonstrate that the fundamentals of learning and demonstration are wrong. 2+2=4. Always. No new information will change this.
James Yount, you jest.
Otherwise with a brain like that you belong in the other camp.
No, I'm a pretty firm agnostic. My point was there is no proof either way, so why would anyone pretend they know all the answers? Being open to possibilities is what separates a thoughtful person from those with a superiority complex. Personally, I think it's better to live your life trying to make humanity better without the delusion that there is an all controlling god, but it's a problem when you present yourself as the authority on truth when talking with others. That makes us all look bad.