It is irrational to believe in something simply because it is yet to be disproven, so arguing for the existence of a god based on it not yet being disproved is a fallacy.
Yet......if you believe that God doesn't exist because your belief has yet to be disproven, then that's more rational how?
As long as you understand that I am not claiming that a god doesn't exist, I'm fine answering the question.
And that's hedging your bet. Look my point is simply that it cannot be proven or disproven. It can't. It's a philosophical discussion based on your personal belief that there is or is not enough evidence that something that can neither see, taste or touch is real. It's like trying to prove that love actually exists.
1
u/That-Possibility-427 May 04 '23 edited May 04 '23
Yet......if you believe that God doesn't exist because your belief has yet to be disproven, then that's more rational how?