Originally Posted by Professor Geoffrey
Awful argument? I actually find it ingenious on our behalf, and part of the reason why faith in general - any faith at all - is still alive. Your counterargument for this is rude and condescending. You knew what he meant. Though it may be a scientifically sound statement you have there, God is - to my belief - a being that is elusive, covering up His trail with science and leaving people to believe what they want to believe. How can you prove that? God said, "Prove all things: hold fast that which is good." Believe with mind, not with sight. That is the very foundation of faith, is it not? The choice to believe in something - not knowing, which is an entirely different thing - is our own. To criticize this choice - no matter how asinine it may seem - is pointless, because every human has his or her right to exercise it. Though it may not be that way everywhere in the world, they can still believe what they want to believe, because we have free will.
It's religious hypocrisy at its finest. So yes, it is condescending. The answer "faith" is rather, a lack of an answer, but it is still acceptable. The "no evidence against it" argument is awful because of its absurd logical outcome. If you believe in something merely because there is no evidence against it, then you logically should believe in everything
that doesn't have definitive evidence against it. It's a train of logic that can only be properly used by the insane; for reasonable people that don't believe in self-propelled rocks in Death Valley, imps that steal your socks out of the washer, or that Google is a sentient entity plotting to destroy mankind, any use of this argument is simply hypocrisy. You do not believe in the argument that you are using, and therefore you cannot be using it.
So, in short, if your answer is faith, then you are basically stating you have no reason. If your answer is "there is no evidence against it", then you should believe in everything that everyone tells you.