For someone to not have the answers then the answer cannot be "no god".So it is extreme to simply not have all the answers?
Sorry, but I just don't see it.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
For someone to not have the answers then the answer cannot be "no god".So it is extreme to simply not have all the answers?
Sorry, but I just don't see it.
Uncertainty.
Would "neither denying nor affirming" fit?
For someone to not have the answers then the answer cannot be "no god".
One needn't have all the answers to recognize that a possible answer people have proposed is a bad one. That is the case here.For someone to not have the answers then the answer cannot be "no god".
Possibly. Agnostic? Even for agnostics, that is saying one doesn't know, but still atheism is the claim that "no god" did it.
On one hand it is being said that we don't know but then at the same time that, even though we don't know it isn't god, which would be like telling theists, "well I don't know but I believe theists are wrong". Am I missing something here?
How so? If the atheist doesn't have an explanation how is it correct to say the theist is wrong?One needn't have all the answers to recognize that a possible answer people have proposed is a bad one. That is the case here.
Yes I agree with this.Sorry, but that is just wrong. Atheism is not any kind of claim about the origin of existence, nor of Earth or of life.
I can respect this but this sort would not fall under atheism. If your not guessing then it is left open in which case theism isn't necessarily false as atheists claim.It would seem that you are missing the possibility of people simply not knowing nor wanting to guess on some fairly esoterical questions.
Because the fundamental truth-claims of theism are incoherent; it could not be true, even in principle. But even were that not so, if the (pseudo) explanation theism offers doesn't square with the evidence, we needn't know what the correct explanation actually is to note that this explanation cannot be correct.How so? If the atheist doesn't have an explanation how is it correct to say the theist is wrong?
Gods are hardly implausible when we can't even fathom existence coming about on its own. If your talking about some sort of contradictory god that can't possibly exist I can understand but that is the theist extreme, the atheist extreme would be that no gods exist as a counter to the extreme supernatural deity. To me saying supernatural deities don't exists should not be an automatically "therefore gods don't exist".I personally define gods strictly as anthropomorphic personalities of cosmological significance. This is the definition I use when I take the position that gods are so implausible that it is reasonable to assert that they do not exist.
I am not saying everyone does that. I simply used evolution as an example as something I have seen. What I mean to say is that sometimes theists have doubts but for some reason some theists, once they find their faith headed towards doubt, rather than reconcile they just throw out the concept of god completely. I see that I think as often as theists choosing a different god concept.Whether or not anybody's gods exist is a completely separate question to whether or not evolution is true. Yes, people who are highly rational and disinclined to believe propositions with no evidence will usually arrive at the conclusion that gods are imaginary and evolution is true, but they don't stop believing in whatever gods they were raised with because they embraced evolution. They stop believing in gods (or don't start, in my case) because the proposition is irrational and there is no evidence it is true, and they accept evolution because it is rational and well evidenced. That's a personality type, not an "extreme".
That there are millions upon millions of theists who accept evolution should clue you in that the two questions are not related, except for theists who have turned the denial of evolution into a religion.
That doesn't imply the existence of gods, for any number of reasons. Maybe we can't fathom it because existence coming about is nonsense to begin with? Besides, what exactly have we gained by positing something we can't comprehend (the ultimate mystery, i.e. theos) in order to explain something we can't comprehend?Gods are hardly implausible when we can't even fathom existence coming about on its own.
You keep talking about atheism, as the rejection of theism, as an "extreme", despite failing to give this claim any significance: given that the proposition by which atheism is defined ("theism is false") is a proposition that is either true or false, there is no middle ground, and therefore there is no extreme.If your talking about some sort of contradictory god that can't possibly exist I can understand but that is the theist extreme, the atheist extreme would be that no gods exist as a counter to the extreme supernatural deity.
Since gods=deities, and "supernatural deity" is essentially redundant, that supernatural deities don't exist and that gods don't exist are equivalent.To me saying supernatural deities don't exists should not be an automatically "therefore gods don't exist".
Your simply arguing that because theism is incoherent it is ok to just assume god to be the wrong answer. I can't buy that. If instead an actual explanation was offered it would be something between the extreme of no god vs supernatural god. How can atheists know that it isn't some sort of god, not the incoherent type as put forward by supernatural deity believers?Because the fundamental truth-claims of theism are incoherent; it could not be true, even in principle. But even were that not so, if the (pseudo) explanation theism offers doesn't square with the evidence, we needn't know what the correct explanation actually is to note that this explanation cannot be correct.
Consider a trivial case: there are muddy footprints on my kitchen floor, and someone says "hey, maybe so and so did it". But suppose I know that so-and-so is out of town; I can say that this explanation is false, without knowing what the correct explanation actually is.
In other words, the premise of this thread is entirely mistaken.
It is, because theism is incoherent=theism is not true= theism is not the right answer=theism is the wrong answer.Your simply arguing that because theism is incoherent it is ok to just assume god to be the wrong answer.
This is an exhaustive distinction. If something is not supernatural in the relevant sense, it is not a god.If instead an actual explanation was offered it would be something between the extreme of no god vs supernatural god.
It isn't that some types of god are incoherent, it is that theism- the position that there are gods/deities at all- is incoherent, because its essential/distinguishing truth-claims (RE a cosmic intervener) are incoherent.How can atheists know that it isn't some sort of god, not the incoherent type as put forward by supernatural deity believers?
That is more extreme than what I proposed. Rejecting every and all theism is certainly extreme for not having an answer.T
You keep talking about atheism, as the rejection of theism, as an "extreme", despite failing to give this claim any significance: given that the proposition by which atheism is defined ("theism is false") is a proposition that is either true or false, there is no middle ground, and therefore there is no extreme.
You're using "extreme" in a curious sense then; it isn't that it has gone overboard, since there are only two options- either theism is true, or it is false, and neither option is "extreme" in that sense. Perhaps you mean it is "extreme" in the sense that it is unwarranted- that the atheist's conclusion goes beyond what the evidence or argument provides. This is false, as I would be willing to go over, but at least this is more meaningful than what you initially appeared to be saying.That is more extreme than what I proposed. Rejecting every and all theism is certainly extreme for not having an answer.
Does it though? I can't speak for atheists, but on the other "extreme," being a theist, I know my go to answer isn't "G-d did it."When not offering an explanation but chalking it up to "not god" is extreme to me. So when an atheist decides to offer an explanation, to me it would neccisitate something that can bring existence about and "not god" is extreme in that respect. It goes even further extreme for those who claim existence spawned from "nothing".
I thought so, your rejecting theism as incoherent because of the supernatural aspect. My position is that a supernatural god is extreme and incoherent. I can't agree, just because something natural would have began everything we should still be able to refer to it as some sort of deity. I advocate a middle ground to avoid the supernatural mumbo jumbo. A great deal of theists reject supernatural aspects.I
This is an exhaustive distinction. If something is not supernatural in the relevant sense, it is not a god.
Well, not exactly. By theism I understand the claim: at least one transcendent, providential cosmic intervener exists.I thought so, your rejecting theism as incoherent because of the supernatural aspect.
I agree. I just fail to see how something that isn't "supernatural" could qualify as a god in the first place.My position is that a supernatural god is extreme and incoherent.
Well, it would not be transcendent, which is arguably the sine qua non of theistic gods in general. It would also appear to not be able to perform the function so commonly attributed to God of creating the universe; for if God is just an ordinary object in the universe, then he has none of the special properties which (theologians claim) allowed him to create the universe in the first place.I can't agree, just because something natural would have began everything we should still be able to refer to it as some sort of deity.
Tell me specifically, what such a natural god would look like then, because it sounds like a contradiction in terms.I advocate a middle ground to avoid the supernatural mumbo jumbo. A great deal of theists reject supernatural aspects.
Isn't that another way of saying going overboard? It is the same claim atheists make of theists regarding faith. It takes faith to claim "no god".that the atheist's conclusion goes beyond what the evidence or argument provides.