Originally Posted by rebel_guy

OK, are agnostics agnostic on the issue of whether Zeus exists, or Horus, or Thor? No? But where is the evidence to disprove the existence of these gods? So why make an exception for God/Allah/Jehovah etc? These gods are the inventions of the human mind just as much as Thor and Zeus...so why are they given any plausibility at all? All gods are false almost by definition. If God is all-powerful i.e. contains all the power in the universe then I must be part of God since I, like all human beings, contain some power (Spinoza argued in this fashion). If God is perfect goodness and all powerful then why does evil exist? Forget about the free will nonsense. If God is all knowing then he knows the future so all of our choices are fully determined, in which case we have no free will (and deterministic science based on cause and effect does not admit free will either). And so on...all of these debates have been rehearsed endlessly in philosophy. Ultimately all God squadders resort to saying that they have 'faith' that something is true.

An atheist is someone who says that not only can non-physical gods not exist but any entity with the properties attributed to God is a logical impossibility, hence one does not even have to look for evidence to disprove God's existence since such a being cannot exist in the first place. Do we waste time trying to disprove werewolves or vampires? Do we search for square circles? Aren't agnostics showing cowardice and lack of intellect when they refuse to commit themselves to atheism?

Leibniz argued that this must be the best of all possible worlds because if a better world were possible God would surely have made it (otherwise he would be perverse). Logically airtight. So, ask yourself, is this the best of all possible worlds. No? Then you ought to be an atheist!