Let's look closer at this question. The theist would day that god or gods do exist. The christian would say that God does exist. The atheist says that no god exists unless there is proof beyond a holy text.
Who's right? If we're going to have an honest discussion about religion, is it correct to start with the assumption that there is no god unless we have proof that says otherwise?
No. This is called a false dilemma. There is another answer. We don't know until we have a reason to say yes or no. To say that there is a God is to make a claim. Anyone who makes this claim needs to back it up. Similarly, to say that there is no god is also to make a claim. And anyone who makes this claim needs to back it up.
Until we have good reason to answer yes or no, the correct answer is that we cannot know.
The burden of proof. Russell's Tea Cup..
Here's the claim. There's a tea cup floating in space. It orbits the sun just like the planets. Unfortunately, it's too small to be seen by our most powerful telescope. But it's there.
Should we accept such a claim? Can someone be rational and make such a claim? The burden of proof falls on the person making the claim. Does the tea cup exist? It can be assumed that there is no evidence that it does. With no evidence, the most logical conclusion is that it does not exist.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster..
A variation of the of Russell's Tea Cup analogy is the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The FSM is a satirical creation to the Genesis account of creation. It's a simple and effective rhetorical tool. If a spiritual being is responsible for creating the universe, could it be the FSM? How can we know for sure?
Most theists don't know what to say. Most Christians don't know how to respond. After abandoning all defenses of supernatural explanations, only the theories that are left that are compatible with atheism.
There's a danger with this.
Lewis and Pascal
Pascal's Wager only touches the surface. You have to make a choice. You can decide that God exists. In which case, you stand to gain everything. Or you can decide that God does not exist. In which case you lose everything. What will you chose? Do you put everything on the existence of God? Or risk it all in the hopes that God is not real?
Critics have doubted that Pascal had proven anything. But, C.S. Lewis puts a different spin on the wager that deepens it's meaning.
Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important.
Consider this situation. A doctor tells you that you might have a terminal illness. The default response should be to believe that he might be correct but you don't know. So go on with your life.But this is something serious and important. Perhaps the more rational and reasonable answer is to study, test and determine if this claim is true. Find out the facts and draw the best inference you can think of. Let reason guide you. Let the evidence guide you. A terminal illness is life changing, to say the least. The doctor's claim is a major deal. If false, is of no importance. if true, of infinite importance. It cannot be moderately important.
