A Reasonable Argument For the Existence of God, Eh? Not really...

I, at one time, believed in God, as I was raised by two Christians parents and taken to church on Sundays fairly regularly. Over the years, I've developed more doubt in the existence of a higher power and in organized religion, in general. I now classify myself as an agnostic, because I have a difficult time believing there will ever be a 100% proof provided in either direction, toward the existence of a higher power or toward there not being one present.

I read an article today via the Huffington Post and the title of the piece was very misleading, as it said there's now evidence that belief in God is a reasonable argument. What was this evidence?

The writer spent 90% of this time talking about scientists and atheists being unable to fully prove God doesn't exist. He then concluded because of this, the belief in God is a reasonable argument.

How does that work? Just because person A can't fully prove X, that means it's reasonable for person B to believe Y? Can he spell the word f-a-l-l-a-c-y?

Going by that logic, we could go in a number of different direction on what is a "reasonable" argument. Since scientists have not been able to fully prove in the absence of God, it is now "reasonable" to believe that Elmer Fudd is the lord and savior. It's now "reasonable" to believe Gumby will be waiting for us at the gates of heaven when we all pass to determine if we are worthy of entry. It's now "reasonable" to believe that after we die, we will be probed by aliens for scientific purposes, dropped from a spaceship into a cornfield in central Iowa and then uplifted via a beam by a higher power with the name of Vernon Endowed.

I'm sorry, but just because one can't fully prove something, doesn't make one (of an almost infinite number of) possible option a reasonable one. The author of this article has to realize that his "rationale" could be utilized by the opposing side of the debate. Scientists and atheists alike could say, "Well, theists have been unable to prove the existence of God, which makes our position that much more reasonable." That can go both ways and in both cases, the "argument" would be a very weak one. I have to go. I'm watching a show pertaining to college basketball, where anchor B is telling anchor A, "Look, we can't prove that Kansas, Duke or Ohio State will win the title. So, Iowa State winning the Big XII Championship en route to a national championship after starting the season 3-13 in conference play is a perfectly reasonable argument to have." Indeed, it is. Indeed it is...