This should just be a quick little note. I’ve heard quite often, especially as of late, an argument that some creationists like to throw at us non-believers. The argument is, essentially, as such: “If you are an open-minded atheist then you have to admit that you do not know everything. In fact, you would have to admit that in the entirety of knowledge you would know next to nothing. But let’s say that you had an equivalent of 1% of all the knowledge that was ever to be. If you are truly open-minded wouldn’t you have to admit that it’s possible that there is ample evidence for the existence of god in the other 99% outside of your knowledge?” And creationists ask this as a serious question. They think this is deal breaker for atheism. But my response is simple: if you are an open-minded creationist then you have to admit that you don’t know everything. And even if you did have 1% of all knowledge that was to ever be you would still have to admit that in the other 99% there could be ample evidence proving god’s non-existence. It’s an unfair argument, isn’t it? Saying somebody’s belief about anything is questionable because one doesn’t have all the knowledge that was to ever be is absolutely ludicrous. Otherwise everyone would have to be agnostic about absolutely everything. I saw a fox the other day, but perhaps in the knowledge outside of my own knowledge there’s proof that foxes don’t actually exist… and I don’t believe leprechauns exist, but according to creationist logic I have to admit that in the knowledge outside of my own there could be mountains of evidence proving leprechauns exist. What a way to go about living life with that kinda thought process. I swear, some of these creationists don’t truly think about the arguments they put forth, they just heard it from someone else and thought it sounded deep.
