The moment a person forms a theory, his imagination sees in every object only the traits which favor that theory. Thomas Jefferson

Our capacity to know for certain is extremely limited, even scientists agree with this. We assume facts to be facts until we disprove them and since our time and space is inifinite (at least to our capabilities of determining), we may never be able to disprove a fact which is actually false. We may see something as true forever simply because we cannot see its falsehoods. According to Richard Carrier, we can only prove the limits of which we can see.

Theism strives to prove the existence of an intelligent and omnipotent creator. Believers of theism often look for evidence to prove the existence of such a creator which is difficult because the assumptions made about him are that he is so powerful that we can't comprehend of discover all of his ways. Unfortunately, many assume that since a God is not provable to our senses, he cannot exist.

On the contrary, atheism strives to prove the nonexistence of God or a creator. Assumptions are used yet again in determining whether or not God is real. It is assumed that if God existed,there wouldn't be suffering, he would reveal himself, or there would be evidence of such places like Heaven or Hell. In other words, the stories from the Bible or other religious books would be more literal and acceptable because we would be able to touch them. Since this is not so (at least not in a physical or natural sense), we cannot prove God's existence and he therefore, does not exist according to atheists.

Both views choose to base their beliefs on proof and whether or not evidence determines existence. Do we need to prove or disprove in order to believe? As Jefferson suggested in his quote at the beginning of this blog, these repelling views choose only to see evidence that coincides with their theory.

Therefore, is agnosticism the less stubborn view? Since our capabilities and capacity to know are so limite, perhaps agnostics are wise in choosing a view open to interpretation. This interpretation could be based upon scientific evidence of the existence or nonexistence of a God or experience. This evidence (or lack thereof) could sway an agnostic to believing in the POSSIBILITY of a God more or less but he will never confirm nor deny this existence. Believing that we cannot and will not ever know if God exists is a commendable thing to do in that it is admitting our limits as human beings, but is it also at the same time trying to find a way not to commit to or form opinions about an issue that shapes the lives of not only philosophers but families, cultures, and individuals alike? And if so, is this indifference a safer route to take?