Jump to content
  • entries
  • comments
  • views

The Null Position




There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding in my interactions with people when I discuss my position on God. It seems that most people see two categories For/Against, Pro/Con, Yes/No ... The misunderstanding seems to stem from the idea that if you don't choose one category that must mean you have chosen the other. Although, a situation may be one case or another, for example, is someone guilty or innocent, you don't need to accept either position. Not accepting either position is the Null position.


Using the example of guilty or innocent, if you're on a jury and you need to make that decision, in America, they would ask you if there is enough evidence to accuse someone of guilt. If you decided there is not enough evidence, you have not then made the determination that this person is, in fact, innocent. You are only making a claim to whether or not the evidence supports this person's guilty charge. In reality, they may, very well, be guilty, but you are only making a decision on the evidence. The evidence is not enough to declare guilt.


When I claim that the evidence does not support the belief of a God, I am taking a Null position. I am not claiming I know, for a fact, that there is NO god. I am claiming that I do not have enough evidence to accept that there is a God. Unless there is more convincing evidence, my belief on the existence of God is in the Null position.



Recommended Comments

But everyone knows the null position is the existence of the Iron Age god of the Hebrews.  Because, since the dawn of creation his invisible qualities have been clearly seen, so we are without excuse.


And if you don't accept that it's just because you presuppose that the Iron Age god of the Hebrews doesn't exist, so it is impossible for you to come to the self-evident conclusion that he does.


Said no rational person ever.

Link to comment
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.