Thanks for your thoughts. I enjoyed them.

I actually really liked the Butterfly Effect. The first one, anyway. The second one was a big disappointment.

@UpsideDownAgain did you see the original French film starring Audrey Tautou? Much more realistic than the Aston Kutcher version I think. No flashbacks and time travel.

@Barnie2years No, but you've got me interested. I'll look it up.

You don’t need ‘all the knowledge of the universe,’ only proof…

@Varn : What I mean by that is that I do not know everything that is possibly either inside, or outside, of our universe. And, to make a positive claim that there absolutely is no god, is basically making the claim that one contains the knowledge of the universe(s). And, it too would require that I provide evidence. I absolutely don't believe there is any kind of god; but I cannot say that this is based on any absolute knowledge I possess. It is based on the fact that I see no need for any gods, nor evidence for any.

@Joanne No need to disprove a fantasy … unless you actually think any of the multitude of historical or current creation myths are remotely accurate. It’s not up to us to disprove anything, quite the contrary…

@Varn : I agree we don't need to worry about disproving any claims. It is up to the person making the claim to offer up testable, verifiable, falsifiable, proof. If someone says to me "there is a god" I will ask them to show me such proof...personal feelings and supposed miracles don't count.

And, if I say to someone that there is no god (and by this I mean no god of any kind) I must then show proof because I have made a claim. And, there is no evidence that I can submit that will prove that no being, that we would call a god, exists somewhere inside, or outside, of our time and universe.

I am under no obligation to disprove their claim; but, if I make a claim I am under an obligation to offer proof to back up my claim. And, I cannot offer solid proof, I can only offer up the science that shows that no god is necessary for the universe to behave just as it does and that there is no evidence for the existence of any such being, or beings.

@Joanne They say, “There’s a Loch Ness Monster!” You say, “Prove it.”

Yet you won’t say, “There is no Loch Ness Monster,” because you’ve not personally searched every underwater crevice of Loch Ness?

I have a good understanding of their description and concept of both a god, and ‘nessy,’ and can without the shadow of a doubt rest assured, neither exist..

Though self-limiting purity may feel accurate, or noble, it’s weak and destructive to empower those putting forth false claims not to deny them because we can not disprove a negative. They win - because they don’t back off.

@Varn : The Lock Ness monster is something that is supposed to exist within our time and on our planet, just like Big Foot. It is easier to say that they do not exist, for if they did, we would have proof. To make a claim of non-existence for a being that supposedly exists outside of what we know as time, and encompasses the universe, is simply something that cannot be scientifically disproved. Again, which is why, even though I personally think there is no god, I will not make that claim in an argument against a believer.

@Joanne The Loch Ness Monster is described by humans, as are their ‘gods.’ ...I don’t expect you to step up to dismissing the make-believe entities of others - but do not want to leave others your convenient out..

Like hell I do.

when one can neither prove nor disprove the existence of something the default position is to assume until evidence shows otherwise that the thing in question in all probability does not exist or that if it does it is irrelevant.

This stance has worked pretty well for "false" gods, faeries, pixies, unicorns, demons, evil spirits, the boogieman, Captain Kirk, Sherlock Holmes, the loch Ness monster and Mr. Burns.

It's not possible to prove or disprove the existence of Santa Clause either. The only reason I ever believed in Santa was because I was brought up with the idea of Santa. I stopped believing when I crawled under the kitchen table one Christmas Eve and watched dad and mom carry presents out to the tree. The "evidence" that Santa existed had been proven false and without that, there wasn't really anything else to base my belief on.

I only believe in god because I was brought up to believe in god but slowly I'm understanding that all the "evidence" isn't necessarily what it seems. Every piece of evidence can have other explanations. I believe in law they call that "reasonable doubt." Without the evidence, I am asking myself why on this one subject I insist that I just don't know. I am reasonably sure Santa doesn't exist so why insist god might? Well, the conditioning runs deep and this wouldn't be the first time I hesitated to give something up just in case I get hit by lightening or something.

@LenHazell53 Agree. No evidence means irrelevant.

@UpsideDownAgain You have been taught to fear the wrath of a god, and fear makes one cautious. That's OK. It may take years or decades to become comfortable with your agnosticism. Everyone is different. Family interactions may be troublesome as long as you live. Every family is different.

You are becoming more enlightened, less deluded, and more into realism. It is a lifelong process. Try to enjoy it; there are amazing things to learn.

I think you are experiencing culture shock. (There's a book named Culture Shock) It will lessen over time, but can make you feel out of sorts. In addition we are living in a time of Future Shock (another book), so you are doing very well, all things considered.

Whew! Wasn't in the budget anyway.