Gnostic Atheist here for debate: Does god exist?

[u/Laughing__Man]

Looking to pass time at work by having a friendly discussion/debate on religion. My position is I am a gnostic atheist which claims to "know" that god doesn't exist. I argue for naturalism and determinism as explanations for how we exist and got to this moment in time.

My noble cause in life: To believe in the most truths and the least amount of lies as possible in life. I want to only believe in what is true in reality. There is no benefit to believing in a lie or using old outdated information to form your worldview.

My position is that we have enough knowledge today to say objectively whether a god exists or not. The gaps are shrinking and there is simply no more room for god to exist. In the past the arguments were stronger, but as we learned it becomes less possible and as time goes on it becomes more and more of a possibility fallacy to believe in god. Science will continue to shrink the gaps in the believe of god.

For me its important to pick apart what is true and untrue in a religion. The organization and the people in it are real, but supernatural claims, god claims, soul claims, and after-life claims are false.

Some facts I would include in my worldview: universe is 14 billion years old, Earth is 4.5 billions years old. Life began randomly and evolved on Earth. Life began 3 billion years ago on Earth. Humans evolved 300K years ago and at one point there were 8 other ancient mankind species and some of them co-existed beside us. Now its just us: homosapiens.

I believe using a lot of the facts of today does disprove religious claims; especially religions that have conflicting data in their creation stories. The creation stories in any religion are the "proof" and the set of facts you have to adhere to if that is how you "know" god. I.E if you take the Garden of Eden as a literal story then evolution disproves that story as possible.

If you are agnostic I'll try to push you towards gnostic atheism. For everyone I usually will ask at some point when does naturalism end and your supernatural begin?

My argument is that if I can get from modern day (now) back to the big bang with naturalism then that proves my theory that god does not exist. I hope your argument is that god exists in reality, because if it doesn't then why assume its anything more than your imagination or a fictional character we created?

[u/AutoModerator]

Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP.

Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are detrimental to debate (even if you believe they're right).

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Uuugggg]

This always ends up with everyone agreeing in every way but with only pedantic differences in labels.

People who are "agnostic" about gods will also say they're agnostic about faeries, making the discussion not particularly about gods. Or they use "agnostic" in a way that literally everyone has to be agnostic, making the discussion not about anyone's opinion but the meaning of the word.

So always, this sort of argument isn't even about gods or evidence or reason, it's about the practical vs "technically accurate" usage of words and that's honestly exhausting.

[u/TarnishedVictory → u/Uuugggg]

This always ends up with everyone agreeing in every way but with only pedantic differences in labels. People who are "agnostic" about gods will also say they're agnostic about faeries, making the discussion not particularly about gods.

Maybe, but for me it's about falsifying unfalsifiable claims. I don't know what a fairy is, so if you define it, then I can tell you whether I'm agnostic about it or if I believe it exists or if I believe it does not exist.

I can also speak colloquially and say they don't exist. But if I'm trying to use formal logic, then I have to respect the notion of falsifiability as I don't want to make logic errors.

[u/Uuugggg → u/TarnishedVictory]

I would not call it a logical error to say I have good reason to know that gods are made-up fairy tales. The only extent to which it's a "logical error" would be to say that with 100% certainty, but at that point you also can't say that the world is real with 100% certainty, which is another point I forgot to make here: you'd have to be agnostic about literally everything, which is again exhausting.

[u/TarnishedVictory → u/Uuugggg]

I would not call it a logical error to say I have good reason to know that gods are made-up fairy tales.

And that's a colloquial statement. But if you're going to assert that there are no gods, using formal logic, you're falsifying an unfalsifiable claim. I don't make the rules, I'm just informing you of them.

The only extent to which it's a "logical error" would be to say that with 100% certainty

No. That's not true. Do you agree that saying "some god exists" is an unfalsifiable claim?

Do you agree that saying "no gods exist" is falsifying the above unfalsifiable claim?

Maybe if you try to create a syllogism that concludes with "therfore no gods exist", maybe then you'll see the problem?

[u/Uuugggg → u/TarnishedVictory]

I refer you to the above statement

it's about the practical vs "technically accurate" usage of words and that's honestly exhausting.

[u/TarnishedVictory → u/Uuugggg]

Then why do you push back when I say you're speaking colloquially?

[u/Laughing__Man → u/Uuugggg]

Thats kind of a good point. People can claim to be agnostic on faeries but are they justified in having a belief where faeries can one day be proven true? If they dont have any facts that faeries exist in reality and only have evidence for them in stories then that does give us a conclusion. Faeries are make believe and exist only in fiction or imagination.

[u/Raznill → u/Laughing__Man]

This is a good point. I know god doesn’t exist like I know fairies don’t exist. Of course given new information my knowledge would change thus it’s possible for my opinion to change. Just like I know which gas goes in my car but if I discovered tomorrow I was wrong I’d update my knowledge. Yes. I think I’m a gnostic atheist too.

[u/MrPrimalNumber → u/Laughing__Man]

Stories describe properties of faeries. They apparently exist on earth, and could be discovered. Because there doesn’t seem to be any evidence of fairies, it’s prudent to be skeptical. A deist type god has no known properties, its only supposed act was creating the universe, and there’s no expectation of any evidence of its existence. Said god is in a different category than faeries. It’s prudent not to believe in such a god, but it’s too much of a stretch to say it doesn’t exist.

[u/BarrySquared → u/Laughing__Man]

If they dont have any facts that faeries exist in reality and only have evidence for them in stories then that does give us a conclusion. Faeries are make believe and exist only in fiction or imagination.

It doesn't, though. Not at all.

[u/Uuugggg → u/BarrySquared]

I don't know how you function if you can't conclude that characters like Santa Clause are not real.

[u/SixteenFolds → u/Uuugggg]

I think a lot of people struggle with understanding that not concluding Santa Claus is not real does not entail thinking Santa Claus is real or even that Santa Claus could possibly be real. 

We can't know Santa Claus is not real, but we also don't have to. Not concluding the falsity of a claim doesn't entail any action or behavior.

[u/ima_mollusk → u/Uuugggg]

I don't conclude it. I presume it, and continue to presume it until there's evidence for it.

[u/BarrySquared → u/Uuugggg]

I do believe that fairies are fictional. But I can't say that I know that they don't exist because then I'm adopting a burden of proof that I just can't meet.

How do I possibly prove that there aren't fairies hiding away somewhere?

[u/Uuugggg → u/BarrySquared]

You are indeed the exact person I'm talking about when I decided on the word "exhausting" up there

[u/BarrySquared → u/Uuugggg]

I'm not entirely surprised that you find intellectual honesty to be exhausting.

You're making claims that you can't possibly demonstrate to be true.

I prefer to leave that sort of thing to the theists.

[u/CptMisterNibbles → u/Uuugggg]

By not having a naive strawman of a position.

Can you prove conclusively you aren’t in a simulation? Of course not. Have you solved hard solipsism? No? Do you give serious credence that they are likely? Probably not. They are fanciful ideas without a scrap of evidence to indicate they are real, so one is justified in not believing them to be true. Like that.

[u/Uuugggg → u/CptMisterNibbles]

My man it’s not a straw man when I am addressing exactly what they just said

[u/CptMisterNibbles → u/Uuugggg]

We both know what you’re doing. Read your sentence again and tell me you don’t think you’re being a bit snotty. Do you think the user actually believes in Santa Claus or do you think instead they are using terminology ever so slightly differently than you, and you are pretending like it’s “exhausting” to be accurate about what it means to “know” something.

You accept the position that you don’t absolutely know things and yet are annoyed when this entails that you are in fact agnostic on nearly any claim. You could just… acknowledge that’s true.

It’s debate sub. Of course it’s going to get nitpicky about definitions. If you aren’t interested in getting all pedantic over what it means to “know” something, and I acknowledge that’s what this often comes down to, then maybe this isn’t the sub for you. Being specific on belief and meaning is kinda the whole point.

[u/MajesticFxxkingEagle → u/CptMisterNibbles]

We both know what you’re doing.

Do you? Did you have a perfectly accurate brain scanner that can read out exactly what they were intending to say with 100% logical certainty? Or would you agree that interpretation of your use “know” is fucking stupid?

pretending like it’s “exhausting” to be accurate about what it means to “know” something.

It’s exhausting because no one fucking speaks like that. In just about any everyday conversation, if someone says “I know that’s false” or “I know that doesn’t exist” they aren’t talking about logical certainty or claiming to have scoured the entire multiverse.

Furthermore, putting aside colloquial use, it’s not even the main philosophical usage! The consensus view when it comes to epistemology is fallibilism—the position that absolute certainty is not required for knowledge.

[u/CptMisterNibbles → u/MajesticFxxkingEagle]

This is a moronic reply. Do you believe you need a brain scanner to have a read on someone's intentions? Do you think I made the claim that I know for absolute certain I knew what this person thought? Do you not see the absolute irony in thinking that's what I meant when the main thrust of my argument is that I don't believe you can absolutely know anything about the universe at all?

Hey look, another person that has no idea what sub they are in. Is this a casual discussion where we are being loosey goosey about definitions regarding things like what it means to be skeptical, what are doxastic beliefs etc? Or is this literally the place where discussing these issues is entirely the point. When you whine about colloquial usage in a sub where we are specifically here to discuss the philosophical meanings of ideas you sound like a fool. When you make an appeal to a consensus view as if that's all we ought to use when in a debate sub about epistemology you miss the point. Its exhausting when people have different epistemologies than you? Then leave the sub designed specifically where discussions of differing epistemologies is a core goal.

[u/MajesticFxxkingEagle → u/CptMisterNibbles]

Jfc, you have no reading comprehension.

No, obviously you don’t need a brain scanner to have a read on someone’s intentions. That was literally the exact opposite of the point I was making.

I was highlighting the irony of you advocating for a specific definition of “know” that requires absolute certainty (which you and I both agree is impossible for literally everything), yet in the same fucking breath you say you “know” what the other guy is doing where you use the word “know” to just mean “have a general idea of, based on what I’ve seen”.

[u/Ok_Frosting6547]

I'll put out my position on God and we can go from there if you are willing.

I accept the scientific consensus that the Universe is roughly 14 billion years of age and the earth around 4.5b, as well as the evolutionary history of organisms. I acknowledge that this ends up lowering the prior probability of at least Abrahamic notions of God in the popular religions of today. I would consider myself Agnostic.

I left religion because it conflicted with my personal journey trying to grasp the world and embrace curiosity. Upon exploring subjects of interest like science and philosophy my parents expressed fear that it was "the devil tempting me" and tried restricting me from accessing that material (like vetting what books I got from the library), it didn't feel right, what could be so bad about exploring beyond your bubble? The truth should fear no examination. The dealbreaker for me was realizing how different my experience was from others who are religious, they claimed to talk with God and have special experiences, I never did, I felt alienated. My religious community (traditional protestant lutheran background) embraced dogmatism, fear, and intolerance while I valued embracing curiosity, self-exploration, and challenging conventional norms. They just didn't mix well and ultimately I don't see myself returning to religion, at least not traditional religion. I understand this doesn't apply to all Christians (or those of other religions), but once you take away the fundamentalist aspect of religion, it no longer makes much sense to me to continue embracing it.

My position is simply put: I do not know why we exist and how everything began, or if there was an ultimate beginning in any meaningful sense. Those are fascinating questions I don't imagine having the answers to in my lifetime. Some kind of higher power like a supernatural mind is one interesting possibility, but doesn't have a particularly high prior probability in my mind, kinda like how I view simulation theory or Biocosm. I don't see how I can completely discount something as broad and nebulous as the concept of God simply because "we invented the concept", after all, we came up with every idea and concept from our ability to imagine and be creative.

As for Naturalism, not completely settled on that one either, there are some compelling arguments though.

[u/Laughing__Man → u/Ok_Frosting6547]

what issues do you see with naturalism? Lets just isolate the conversation to Earth and life. Naturalism is a good explanation of how the Earth formed. We see billions of planets in the universe so we can assume they are not created by some intelligent designer. Planets happen. Life began randomly and started as simple organisms and evolved over time. The tree of life shows us that any life form is valid and has its own purpose designed to help it survive and pass along its genes. Thats what humans are doing and all other life we see alive now. Life has the meaning we give it. You could have just as easily not existed and you were never entitled to life from the universe, but our parents made that choice for us, maybe out of accident or some selfish desire to fulfill a part of their life by passing on their values. The idea of god is like a parent there to guide us and give us direction and god is supposed to be some ideal perfect version of a human. We can trace the idea of god from us and we dont have any evidence of god outside of human thought.

[u/Ok_Frosting6547 → u/Laughing__Man]

I'm not sure if naturalism can fully account for the origins of the universe. Like where did the universe come from? Did it create itself? Or did it just always exist in some other primordial form or multiverse? Interesting thoughts, but it's far from settled. Also, what about the applicability of mathematics? How is it that we can successfully predict things without empirical observation by coming up with the right equations? How is this possible if mathematics is a human invention, a hallucination of a physical nervous system? What about morality? How can objective morality exist if everything is material and natural laws? And what about free will? Does the notion of free will and responsibility even make sense anymore if the brain is purely physical and subject to the laws of physics?

I am not saying naturalism can't account for these, but it's a perplexing topic. I think a lot of atheists just assume that since we have found natural explanations for so many things that there is bound to be one for every other aspect of reality, or they are just triggered by theists throwing in their God as the explanation.

Relativity, evolution, the Big Bang, mathematical theories, they all came from us, but we realize there is merit to them because we confirmed them to be consistent with our empirical observation. Perhaps the superstitious religious people weren't entirely wrong about everything? At the very least it's not impossible, right?

[u/QuantumChance → u/Ok_Frosting6547]

Consider that we have never seen the origin of anything. Everything you have ever laid your eyes on or heard or touched is something that is in transition to something else. Everything came from something else.

So why people are so mystified by the statement that the universe shouldn't require an origin is beyond me, seems perfectly reasonable and within our experience.

[u/Ok_Frosting6547 → u/QuantumChance]

It's a little tricky intuitively because if we ask where that transition came from and on and on, where does it stop? Does it go back ad infinitum? If so, how could that chain have ever reached us?

[u/QuantumChance → u/Ok_Frosting6547]

Read up on Xeno's paradox, your little conundrum has been solved long ago. I won't spoil it for you, read it for yourself!

I'll just say for my part that an infinite process can result in a finite result. In calculus for instance we take a function into infinite slivers and yet we end up with a finite area under the curve. So your logic that an infinite chain of processes can't possibly bring us to a finite point in time such as this falls completely flat, even by your own logic.

[u/Ok_Frosting6547 → u/QuantumChance]

It was addressed long ago too, by Aristotle. An arrow is not travelling over an actually infinite number of points, it's just you can continually divide the space into potential infinity. So it doesn't quell the absurdity of it, nor does conceptually representing infinity in calculus. We're talking about an actual traversal of an infinite sequence of time!

[u/QuantumChance → u/Ok_Frosting6547]

"So it doesn't quell the absurdity of it, nor does conceptually representing infinity in calculus."
You don't seem to understand that the absurdity in this case lies within the faulty logic of Xeno's paradox. You are using xeno's paradox to challenge whether space could or couldn't be infinite, therefore the philosophical response to xeno's paradox actually does matter.

Saying 'were talking about ACTUAL traversal of time' as though Xeno wasn't talking about traversal of time, The same Xeno you just tried to use to claim the universe couldn't be infinite and now you discount Xeno's paradox? Thank you! I accept your concession here!

[u/Ok_Frosting6547 → u/QuantumChance]

It's just not the same problem, philosophers have already addressed this with the "actual infinite" vs "potential infinite" distinction. But yes, take the W, I'm a couple days late here.

[u/QuantumChance → u/Ok_Frosting6547]

Okay so is the universe potentially infinite or is it actually infinite? if you take issue with the universe being actually infinite, there is no sci theory that proposes this is the case, but it's also true that the universe is potentially infinite.

[u/siriushoward → u/Ok_Frosting6547]

According to modern understanding of infinity, there is no actual traversal of infinity anywhere at all. Because even on infinitely long chain/timeline, every single node/moment is finite amount of steps/time away from every other nodes/moments. 

I wrote an explanation to someone else before. Let me copy here

----------

First start with basic numbers.

• There are infinitely many numbers.
• Each number has a finite value. No number has a value of infinity.
• We can pick any two numbers and subtract them, the difference is always finite.

Now, applying to an infinite timeline / infinite chain of events:

1. On an infinitely long chain of events, there are infinitely many events.
2. Let's give each event an ID with the format E(number). E1, E2, E3, E4, E5.........
3. Since we will never run out of numbers, we can assign a number to every event. Even though there are infinite amount of events, each event can still be assigned a number.
4. We can pick any two events on this chain, Ex & Ey. where Ex is before Ey, either directly before or with intermediate steps in between. We can subtract their ID (y - x) to calculate how many steps there are between Ex and Ey.
5. Since both Ex and Ey have finite number ID. the difference y - x is always finite. So they are finite amount of steps away from each other.
6. Conclusion: Every event is finite number of steps away from every other event. Infinitely long timeline/chain do not involves any traversal of infinity.

[u/Ok_Frosting6547 → u/siriushoward]

From infinity past to today, there is a traversal of infinity. Even here, you play into the intuition of a potential infinite. If you start from E1 and it goes to E-Infinity, there is never a traversal of infinity because you can always keep counting, you never reach "infinity" when counting. However, if there is an infinity past that never began, then it has already been infinity years!

[u/siriushoward → u/Ok_Frosting6547]

Every single event/node has a finite ID. There is no event/node with ID E-infinity or E+infinity.

Edit: for Clarity, I'm going to use E-ID for events in the past and E+ID for events in the future.

[u/FreedomAccording3025 → u/Ok_Frosting6547]

I find your comment interesting and wanted to chime in a little. I agree with that in principle, there could be a non-naturalistic explanation in the end. Maybe the universe is a computer simulation run by little green people. But I also wanted to provide some facts which I think can provide some motivation for the science. To show how all commonly-accepted scientific theories, even in something as uncertain as cosmology, are often very well-motivated and not just contrived to fit the facts.

1. On the Big Bang and the origins of the Universe, there is a big misconception here that the Big Bang theory is about the beginning of the Universe. All the Big Bang theory states is that all of the unfathomably large observable universe must have been at some point in time (13 billion years ago) a subatomic region of space. Whether this subatomic region of space (which then hyperinflated into all of the Universe we can see today) is only a tiny part of a much larger universe, or it truly is the beginning of something, is not what the Big Bang theory really tries to explain or even cares about. To motivate this seemingly ludicrous idea, it is because such an inflationary Big Bang idea elegantly and masterfully explains multiple facts about the Universe that we have already observed experimentally, with one "simple" solution. These facts being, the continued redshift of galaxies i.e. expansion of the Universe, the extraordinary flatness (near-zero spacetime curvature) of the Universe, the extraordinary thermal homogeneity of the cosmic background radiation (to something like 1 part in 100,000), and the rarity of magnetic monopoles. It turns out that a Universe which rapidly inflated from a subatomic point 13 billion years ago would exactly be one which perfectly fit all of these facts, and that is the reason it is the dominant scientific theory.
2. Similarly with the strange usefulness of mathematics. I feel like the cause and effect is reversed here. For example, shortly after the proposal of the heliocentric model, Kepler had figured out a great deal about the orbits of planets around the Sun. He confirmed that all planets orbit not in circles but in ellipses, along with other technical conditions about the angular momentum and period of the orbits. Newton then came along and realised that if the Sun and the planets exerted forces on each other, where such a force dropped off with the inverse square law, then they would naturally orbit in ellipses satisfying Kepler's conditions. The problem was that the orbit of Mercury didn't follow exactly what Newton's laws predicted, until Einstein came along and his theory of general relativity (which, by the way, is a monstrous work of mathematics and not at all simple) was able to explain why Mercury's orbital precession behaved the way it did. Now we still have a problem because Einstein's theory is incompatible with quantum mechanics (which anyone having studied path integrals or the Lagrangian of the standard model would tell you is absurdly complicated mathematics). So we know it cannot be the whole truth, but we don't know how to fix it. It is not really the case that we assume a mathematical statement and then test it against the facts, it is often a case that the facts hint at certain underlying truths that we then realise and express in the language of mathematics, and increasingly in highly sophisticated and obscure mathematics. It's kinda like the story about blind men touching different parts of the elephant. Eventually someone comes along and realises that it's really an animal, and then describes the characteristics of said animal with a language, culminating in invention of the word "elephant". It is not strange that the word "elephant" describes the animal, it is because the word was invented to express the concept of the animal we know of.
3. This is less about science and more about philosophy, but personally I just don't believe in objective morality and I think it is nothing more than a set of social norms. As for free will, I agree with you that as a 19th century naturalist it would be impossible to believe in anything other than determinism, if we accept the brain is completely material. But the arrival of quantum mechanics changes everything; now the course of every subatomic particle since the Big Bang is no longer pre-determined, but rather an infinitude of possibilities. Consciousness may very well be related to quantum processes and especially wavefunction collapse (the process in which abstract quantum possibilities produce any real/measurable outcome when interacting with other particles), so while we don't have any definitive answers on the topic I would argue that there are at least plausible physical mechanisms for free will.

I don't know if I got the subtlety across. I think what I'm trying to say is that most established science doesn't work by assuming naturalism and then throwing mathematical spaghetti on the wall to see what sticks. It often is an exercise in collecting a diverse set of facts, and realising the patterns and structures that result in such emergent phenomena. Then using existing or inventing new mathematics to express these structures.

[u/Laughing__Man → u/Ok_Frosting6547]

A god existing would be impossible. "True" means in accordance with fact or reality. "Reality" means the state of things as they actually exist. My goal in life is to believe in the most truths and the least amount of lies possible, and I believe the human race is also committed to this goal as a whole. I dont think atheist or theist are triggered like you say. Nobody should want to believe in a lie.

We have to start with what we know and then build off that knowledge. I am making the effort to distinguish between natural and supernatural. God isn't a good explanation because religion just keeps moving the goal posts to keep that presupposition. Humans never "knew" god and we were wrong like we have been wrong on many things before. The evidence should lead us to the conclusion and the evidence supports naturalism.

The things that religion gets wrong is claims on an afterlife, souls, and a god. But people who practice religion are real. I do make the effort of separating fact and fiction from religion. I take all the small truths found in each religion and used those. Humans evolved to be pro social and religion is a way to practice community and culture. Its there for us not a god.

[u/Ok_Frosting6547 → u/Laughing__Man]

All religions may be entirely wrong about God, but that doesn't mean a God doesn't exist. There is Deism, maybe the creator(s) of the universe (or some separately existing being or beings co-eternal with the universe) doesn't care about nor intervene in our world. The concept of God is not exclusive to the Abrahamic religions.

[u/Laughing__Man → u/Ok_Frosting6547]

How are you arriving to this concept of god? What in reality points to a creator? The Big Bang up to right now has all been naturalism(without god). Let me know if you agree that everything inside the universe is natural and if you only thing things outside the universe could be supernatural. As long as we can come up with natural explanations then we can continue to use this model of reality.

The issue with deism is the same with any god. They claim to be the necessary existence that had no cause, and that is unnatural. Without any evidence for a god this is just a hypothesis only. We can prove naturalism with science. We can understand how a planet forms in space using natural laws of nature and not intelligent design. Naturalism doesn't have to disprove a god to be true, it just needs to be able to explain reality accurately. It doesn't need to explain "why" it just has to explain "how".

[u/Ok_Frosting6547 → u/Laughing__Man]

What do you think caused the Big Bang? And why does the universe have the constants to allow for carbon life like us to exist?

I'm just saying I don't know the answer to this but there is a possibility in the back of mind that maybe it comes down to a creator, or a simulation, or an advanced alien race in the multiverse. Speculations are fun. Some of the arguments that naturalism is more likely than theism is compelling, but I remain agnostic overall on it.

I guess I probably can't be moved on my agnosticism because to do so would require you convince me that you in fact know the answer to the deep questions on the nature of reality over many other speculations that exist among others. Best you can do is argue naturalism is the most plausible explanation, but my confidence in that position would remain quite low, I could easily be wrong since I'm going off intuition.

[u/hellohello1234545 → u/Ok_Frosting6547]

Not the same people you’ve been talking to, but I’d like to chime in some thought

• I really don’t see how unanswered questions become part of the argument. Imagine we never know how, or if, the universe came to be. How could that have any bearing on any argument? It’s an unknown. To say “I don’t know, therefore…” or even to increase credence, I don’t really get it

• for the discussions about needing a beginning, or traversing infinite time. I would say we know that human intuition is notoriously unreliable, and I see every reason why intuition would be a terrible way to approach physics or logic problems. See how many statisticians struggle with the known gambling fallacy even when they know how it works, or how many real phenomena in physics are completely counterintuitive. All I’m saying here is that intuition is not a good indication of anything for these areas. Human intuition evolved for hunting, gathering and social activity.

[u/Ok_Frosting6547 → u/hellohello1234545]

It may not be but at least it’s something to go off of. A lot of our basic underlying day to day reasoning would be futile if we discarded our intuitive capacity. Maybe I’m just talking to a figment of my imagination!

[u/hellohello1234545 → u/Ok_Frosting6547]

That’s my point exactly tho

Intuition evolved for the day to day, and that’s what we observe it to be most reliable at

Take intuition to things that are: - more complicated - more removed from the situations where we evolved (things removed from the day to day hunting/gathering/socialising where we lived to 20 years old etc)

… and it becomes less reliable

Intuition telling us the world is real doesn’t validate its use for the hardest problems in physics and logic at all.

I would say the role of intuition in these areas is to generate hypotheses rather than conclusions (or even guesses at conclusions).

Like, how on earth are we supposed to accurately intuit whether we can traverse infinity? Our brains are built for recognition of human faces, running from danger, and pattern recognition generally. I don’t see the link.

We can learn physics and logic, but to apply them to a given question we also need evidence external to our thoughts

[u/Laughing__Man → u/Ok_Frosting6547]

Each model of reality whether theistic or atheist would have its own evidence; some more than others. If you are not choosing the model with the best evidence then I dont know what criteria you want for truth. You dont even need to go off your own intuition. We have been around as species for 300k years and we have been working on these questions this entire time.

imagination is fun and we can come up with 1000 crazy ideas on how the universe happened, but what answered were divinely revealed to us and what knowledge did we earn ourselves? So far all knowledge we have earned and accumulated over time. Each of the religions can be traced back to an origin where we were trying to understand reality. It doesn't make sense to hold onto debunked information.

[u/Ok_Frosting6547 → u/Laughing__Man]

All we have is our intuition on what is most plausible. Science can’t answer the deep metaphysical questions here, it’s a utility of predicting accurately with models. Idealism is compatible with science, it just has a different interpretation of what’s going on.

[u/Laughing__Man → u/Ok_Frosting6547]

which deep metaphysical question? How did we get here? Why are we here? We dont need to go further than the planet Earth and evolution for those questions. We are a product of Earth only. When early humans asked those questions they came to conclusions that big hands must have crafted the planet and god created and chose us to be here. Because it being random went against our human logic and intuition and god seemed more plausible.

Forget the universe; do you feel god personally created the earth and personally crafted life intelligently or did it happen randomly? When are you adding in the possibility that an intelligent designer is present in reality?

[u/mcc1923 → u/Laughing__Man]

What caused the Big Bang? How could something come from nothing? Why wouldn’t it keep happening? Why could we not replicate it?

[u/Laughing__Man → u/mcc1923]

Im not saying nothing came from nothing. Thats what theist do with god. We can come up with a 1000 different ways for a natural cause for the big bang that wouldn't require a god being making a conscious decision to make the big bang happen. quarks and quantum fields could have interacted in a way that is rare and triggered a big bang, two external universes collided and sparked our big bang creating a 3rd universe. That wouldn't imply that our universe came from nothing. It could be emergent properties of other natural causes. Infinite regression doesn't hurt naturalism. Let me know if you believe the big bang is the final curtain or was the 2nd domino and immediately before the big bang was god.

We dont have any solid facts on what was before the big bang but if we proved that the big bang had a natural cause would that be the end of it for you? I rather keep the discussion on life and Earth because when we go to the big bang there is nowhere else to go. If you are placing god outside space/time then you did my job for me because Im saying he doesnt exist in reality.

[u/WaffleBurger27]

I too know that God does not exist. There are an infinite number of fantastical, magical things that humans can imagine and all of them are eqully false as there is no actual evidence for any of them. The worlds religions are right up there with unicorns and fairies and leprechauns and trolls under bridges and tea pots orbitting jupiter etc. etc. etc.

Just because billions of people subscribe to any religion does not make it any more true than the magic ring I have in my pocket that allows me to time travel and become invisible, I swear it does.

Edit: Agnostics piss me off. Have a backbone, have some balls, get off the fence.

[u/RexRatio]

I am a gnostic atheist which claims to "know" that god doesn't exist.

Let's dispense theism, it's obvious that all religious doctrines and their pantheons are man-made.

But please provide the independently verifiable evidence on which you base this asserted knowlege that deism is false.

[u/TheRealBeaker420 → u/RexRatio]

I would make this argument:

1. Intelligence is a developed trait

2. A primordial being cannot have developed traits

3. Therefore, a primordial being cannot be intelligent

If it's not intelligent, then it's not a "god" in any meaningful capacity. If it's not primordial, then it can't be a supreme creator being. Deism is essentially forced to retreat into incomprehensibility, which does not make for a meaningful god. Here's a discussion thread on that argument: The absurdity of a primordial intelligence.

[u/AmnesiaInnocent → u/TheRealBeaker420]

1. Intelligence is a developed trait

What is your source for this? Examination of life on Earth?

[u/TheRealBeaker420 → u/AmnesiaInnocent]

And of intelligence in artificial systems. There are many possible conceptions of intelligence, but at a minimum it involves the ability to process information, and any meaningful god must surely process a lot.

If it didn't evolve, and it wasn't designed by a predecessor, where did this ability come from? Is it a Boltzmann brain? There are many avenues we could explore, but none of them make sense as a primordial entity.

[u/RexRatio → u/TheRealBeaker420]

> Deism is essentially forced to retreat into incomprehensibility, which does not make for a meaningful god.

Again, like in other responses, I wholeheartedly agree. But that still doesn't put one in a position to *know for sure*.

[u/TheRealBeaker420 → u/RexRatio]

I say I know for sure because I consider the concept to be absurd. I am certain that a primordial intelligence does not exist. If a being doesn't meet those standards, then I wouldn't call it "god". So, I am certain that god does not exist.

Of course, you're welcome to dispute those standards if you'd like to steelman deism. But I know this as surely as I know anything else.

[u/RexRatio → u/TheRealBeaker420]

I say I know for sure because I consider the concept to be absurd.

Then I say I know for sure you're wrong because I find that reasoning absurd.

See why that doesn't work?

[u/TheRealBeaker420 → u/RexRatio]

No, that works fine. Can you defend that label, as I have done? Why is it absurd?

[u/wolffml → u/RexRatio]

First we have to do something like define what knowledge means. A lot of the literature suggests that knowledge is something like justified true belief. If knowledge is something like justified true belief, then the question you're asking is what is the justification.

And the justification doesn't seem that difficult to come by. For example, the weakness of all theistic arguments. Also arguments against the existence of God like the problem of evil. These combined seem to me to provide justification to say that there is no God and since we have justification it seems we can say this is knowledge.

We should resist the idea that knowledge is infallible knowledge. If we insist that knowledge being infallible, then we would have to admit that we don't know many of the things that we commonly think that we know. For example, that the sun will rise for tomorrow.

[u/RexRatio → u/wolffml]

I'd be happy with defining "knowing there are no gods" in this context as "having independently verifiable evidence there are no gods".

[u/Laughing__Man → u/RexRatio]

My position is naturalism. What we know is from the big bang to modern day (now). Everything inside our reality is natural and is deterministic. Deism shifts the goal posts. It goes from a god created the Earth and all life by hand, to god created the universe and the natural laws and was the prime mover. The reason for pushing god before the big bang was because we learned defeating arguments for god creating the earth and life. Deism is defeated every time we learn more about reality. Where does naturalism end and your supernatural begin?

[u/RexRatio → u/Laughing__Man]

Everything inside our reality is natural and is deterministic.

For starters, it's not deterministic. Quantum uncertainty blows that out of the water.

And naturalism doesn't disprove deism. It can't.

Deism posits that a divine being created the universe but does not interfere with it afterward. The key here is that deism does not rely on miracles, divine revelations, or supernatural events. The natural world, as governed by laws of physics, chemistry, and biology, operates independently of any further divine action.

Naturalism is concerned with explaining the world through observable and testable phenomena. However, the deist God is often posited as an initial cause, a prime mover, or a distant creator who does not interact with the world in ways that are detectable by science. This means that naturalism, which focuses on the mechanisms and processes of the universe, does not address or rule out the possibility of a non-intervening creator. Naturalism, by definition, does not concern itself with supernatural beings that do not interact with the natural world.

While naturalism may argue that there is no evidence for supernatural intervention (such as miracles or divine actions), it does not address the possibility of a deistic God who created the universe and then refrained from further involvement. Since deism suggests no active supernatural involvement, it is not something that naturalism can directly disprove, as there would be no empirical evidence to test against the claim.

Said differently, a gnostic (a)theist claims to know things he/she can't possibly know and conflates belief with knowledge.

[u/ThereIsKnot2 → u/RexRatio]

For starters, it's not deterministic. Quantum uncertainty blows that out of the water.

The Copenhagen interpretation is not deterministic, but Many-Worlds is. You have to bite some bullets either way, but you can keep determinism.

Deism posits that a divine being created the universe but does not interfere with it afterward.

They posit, at the very least, a personal agent with values and purpose. No matter how much anyone claims "divine simplicity", this is a tremendously complex entity which must be assigned a corresponding abysmally low prior probability.

If we can't claim to know there is no God, we can't claim to know anything.

[u/RexRatio → u/ThereIsKnot2]

The Copenhagen interpretation is not deterministic, but Many-Worlds is.

But that still doesn't make this universe deterministic.

What the Many Worlds interpretaton does is basically violate Occam's Razor by adding an infinitely more complex universe to the equation, which is exactly what Deism does: add an ionfinitely more complex entity to the equation.

For me, the bottom line is: the universe behaves exactly as if there are no gods. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. For example:

• Dark matter or dark energy
• The Higgs Boson (Before Discovery)
• Wave-Particle Duality
• The Fermi Paradox
• etc.

[u/ThereIsKnot2 → u/RexRatio]

But that still doesn't make this universe deterministic.

It does. I suggest you look into some trustworthy sources, PBS Space Time is very accessible.

What the Many Worlds interpretaton does is basically violate Occam's Razor by adding an infinitely more complex universe to the equation

Common misconception, it actually removes the "collapse" part of Copenhagen, making it simpler. Even though this results in "infinite universes" (maybe not infinite, but an immense number), these are a consequence of the theory and not an assumption. So, Occam favors MWI.

I suppose you're familiar with Schrödinger's cat. The atom is in a superposition of disintegrated and whole, and this superposition ropes more objects until we reach the cat, in a superposition of dead and alive.

In the Copenhagen interpretation, the scientist opens the box and collapses the system to either "live cat" or "dead cat". In the MWI, there is no collapse. The system keeps entangling, and becomes a superposition of (whole atom, live cat, happy scientist) and (disintegrated atom, dead cat, sad scientist). Of course, each of the scientists has no way of interacting with the other side, from their POV the rest of the wave has "disappeared".

But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

It literally is. If evidence E is more likely under hypothesis H, it follows that lack of E makes H less likely.

Dark matter or dark energy

We have evidence for both. At least evidence that something odd is going on.

The Higgs Boson (Before Discovery)

The Higgs model was ultimately simpler than the alternatives. And if we hadn't found the small bump in 2012, we would be justified in losing confidence in it.

Wave-Particle Duality

We're going for "actually just wave" these days.

The Fermi Paradox

Lack of (credible) evidence for extra-terrestrial intelligence is evidence that there's no one else in our neighborhood.

[u/RexRatio → u/ThereIsKnot2]

It does. I suggest you look into some trustworthy sources, PBS Space Time is very accessible.

I'm very familiar with PBS SpaceTime. If you can point me to a proof that demonstrates the universal wavefunction is true, then I will accept your position. However, as the episode you pointed to clearly says at 9:29:

there's no more evidence for many worlds than there is for other mainstream interpretations of quantum mechanics

If evidence E is more likely under hypothesis H, it follows that lack of E makes H less likely.

"less likely" doesn't equal impossible.

We have evidence for both. At least evidence that something odd is going on.

Something, yes. But there is as of yet no evidence for Dark matter or energy. They are merely inferred. At some point, flogistum theory was inferred to explain combustion, oxidation, and other chemical reactions. The theory was indeed inferred from various experimental observations, though it was ultimately disproved and replaced by the modern understanding of chemistry, particularly through the work of scientists like Antoine Lavoisier.

The Higgs model was ultimately simpler than the alternatives.

That's simply not true. In fact, the Higgs mechanism involved a complex field-theoretic approach and required the introduction of a new field and its associated particle.

One of the most complex aspects of the Higgs mechanism is that it requires a quantum field theory with spontaneous symmetry breaking, which is mathematically sophisticated. The interactions between the Higgs field and the other particles are not straightforward and involve subtle and intricate mathematics.

ANd what you call "simplicity" is more of a matter of mathematical economy rather than outright simplicity.

We're going for "actually just wave" these days.

Evidence, please.

Lack of (credible) evidence for extra-terrestrial intelligence is evidence that there's no one else in our neighborhood.

Nope. It's merely evidence that in the few decades we've been listening for and sending signals on certain waveband frequencies nobody else within 25 lightyears is using the same technology.

[u/ThereIsKnot2 → u/RexRatio]

If you can point me to a proof that demonstrates the universal wavefunction is true

I think I misunderstood you earlier, and the "this one [universe]" threw me off. For the sake of clarity, let's refer to the "worlds" in MWI as "branches" of the same Universe.

Sure, there's no observable evidence that favors MWI over CI or other interpretations. But MWI is simpler than CI.

"less likely" doesn't equal impossible.

Of course, but you can have "evidence against X" that doesn't fully rule out X.

But there is as of yet no evidence for Dark matter or energy. They are merely inferred.

A smoking gun is evidence of a shot. Even if there's other ways to make smoke come out of a gun.

One of the most complex aspects of the Higgs mechanism is that it requires a quantum field theory with spontaneous symmetry breaking, which is mathematically sophisticated. The interactions between the Higgs field and the other particles are not straightforward and involve subtle and intricate mathematics.

ANd what you call "simplicity" is more of a matter of mathematical economy rather than outright simplicity.

The overall theory is still simpler. Should we also think that there is a limited number of stars or galaxies because "fewer is simpler"? Don't think about dismissing all evidence of galaxies we have now, think about the time before discovery. Which method would have consistently led to correct predictions? Same for predicting that "the stars are distant suns, with their own planets" (which some did, with this justification!).

It's merely evidence that in the few decades we've been listening for and sending signals on certain waveband frequencies nobody else within 25 lightyears is using the same technology.

Right. It rules out the options of "someone is near and communicating through radio", thus making the total probability of "someone is near" smaller.

[u/RexRatio → u/ThereIsKnot2]

A smoking gun is evidence of a shot.

Perhaps in a court of law, but not in science.

Even the MWI will never be able to provide verifiable evidence for a deterministic universe, because you don't know in which bubble/iteration/splitoff/instance of the universe you are observing a phenomenon, and it's impossible to verify other outcomes of quantum uncertainty in another bubble/iteration/splitoff/instance of the universe.

[u/ThereIsKnot2 → u/RexRatio]

Perhaps in a court of law, but not in science.

Different practices and disciplines will have different standards and thresholds, but evidence is evidence.

Even the MWI will never be able to provide verifiable evidence for a deterministic universe, because you don't know in which bubble/iteration/splitoff/instance of the universe you are observing a phenomenon

Bubble/iteration/splitoff/instance? You mean branch? It's possible if the field equations are not exactly linear, some experiments have been proposed that would allow communication between branches. And MWI does not predict branches (or universes, or whatever else) in which MWI is false.

I have to ask: do you think we can know anything, at all? Maybe you're a Pyrrhonian and I've been going about this the wrong way.

[u/MrPrimalNumber → u/RexRatio]

Exceedingly well put.

[u/LetsGoPats93]

How do you know that no gods exist or existed? How do you know there is no supernatural realm? I agree we have no evidence, but I struggle to be sure something does not or cannot exist given how limited our knowledge of the universe is.

[u/MajesticFxxkingEagle → u/LetsGoPats93]

I “know” there is no supernatural realm to equal extent that I “know” that there are no fairies.

Is it 100% logical certainty? Obviously not. But defining knowledge that way seems ridiculous and way outside how most normal people use the term.

[u/sj070707 → u/MajesticFxxkingEagle]

Is it 100% logical certainty? Obviously not

That's the only sticking point. If someone wants to insist that gnosticism is 100% then you're saying you can't be gnostic. If someone wants to agree that we can never be 100% certain then maybe it's ok calling it gnosticism. I think you just have to have everyone in the conversation agree.

[u/LetsGoPats93 → u/MajesticFxxkingEagle]

So then do you feel the idea of agnostic atheism to essentially be meaningless? The extent to which we can know would be the same for both the gnostic and agnostic so then it’s just how they interpret that limit on what we can know.

[u/Vallkyrie → u/LetsGoPats93]

Different poster here but yeah that's kind of how I feel. Basically everyone is gnostic for unicorns, fairies, etc. I might as well throw it at god too. I'm definitely gnostic for all named gods and organized religions, seems kind of silly to give it wiggle room for a deistic god when we don't do that for many other things.

[u/nimbledaemon → u/Vallkyrie]

I mean, with unicorns and fairies a claim is being made about something that exists on Earth, and the same with most religions. But I can't rule out that something exactly (or that at least resembles the legends enough that we would immediately call it such) like a unicorn or fairy exists somewhere out there on another planet. I'm gnostic that unicorns and fairies and gods never existed on earth or interacted with it in any meaningful way, but we have not even explored 1% of 1% of the universe, we haven't even found life on other planets yet, and that's something we reasonably think is likely to exist. I'll even agree that every story about unicorns and fairies and gods was made up, but that doesn't mean that something matching that description doesn't exist. Quadrupeds with nose horns aren't even unheard of on Earth, who can say what is or isn't out there? So I'm agnostic on those claims that retreat out of the realm of what we can test or find evidence for, because we can have no knowledge about it.

[u/AxiomaticSuppository → u/Vallkyrie]

Of course one can say they are gnostic for unicorns, Santa Claus, the God of the Christian bible, or the God of any other known religion. This is hardly controversial, at least among fellow atheists . I am a gnostic in that sense, as well. However, gnostic atheism seems to claim much broader certainty about things that are unknowable, which seems like an untenable position. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the gnostic atheist position, but the fact that I acknowledge there are both known unknowns and unknown unknowns is why I consider myself an agnostic atheist. Maybe it's just splitting hairs at the end of the day.

[u/LetsGoPats93 → u/Vallkyrie]

I don’t disagree. It’s making me rethink any distinction between gnostic and agnostic.

[u/MajesticFxxkingEagle → u/LetsGoPats93]

Not necessarily. There are some agnostics out there who genuinely believe that some version of Theism is around 30-60% likely. And so long as they’re under the 50% mark, they’d also count as atheists (at least, under the “lack” definition).

However, for most of the agnostic atheists in this sub? Yeah, it’s meaningless.

[u/LetsGoPats93 → u/MajesticFxxkingEagle]

Interesting. I don’t disagree with you. I consider myself an agnostic atheist, though maybe that distinction has less to do what with I know and more to do with what I think the label says about me. I’ll definitely have to think about it.

[u/MajesticFxxkingEagle → u/LetsGoPats93]

I mean, I used to use the label the same way. It’s especially useful to preempt conversations where the apologist straw-mans our position or tries to improperly shift the burden of proof.

But over time, I just lost interest in the agnostic/gnostic modifiers and just describe my credence level with respect to the specific definition of God being presented.

[u/Laughing__Man → u/LetsGoPats93]

I start with naturalism here on Earth and work my out. You are creating a supernatural realm and placing it outside of reality. You dont have any facts about this supernatural realm. Thats a possibility fallacy to say that we will one day learn about this. If you dont have evidence for it already then its just science fiction.

[u/youareactuallygod → u/LetsGoPats93]

So you’re agnostic right? I see people on this sub communicating the same belief as you but claiming they are athiests, and to me, this is textbook agnostic

[u/LetsGoPats93 → u/youareactuallygod]

Atheists and theists can be agnostic. Agnostic is about what you know, atheist is about what you believe. They are not mutually exclusive. I am an agnostic atheist.

[u/youareactuallygod → u/LetsGoPats93]

I’ve never heard it explained that way, makes sense though. In that case, I have spiritual beliefs but I’m agnostic

[u/acerbicsun → u/LetsGoPats93]

Honestly, the answer to your two questions is "we don't."

It's just that there's so little convincing argument to believe.

[u/LetsGoPats93 → u/acerbicsun]

Thats my point. Wouldn’t saying you don’t know be an agnostic position?

[u/acerbicsun → u/LetsGoPats93]

Sure. And I largely agree with you overall, but I can't demonstrate the non-existence of god, so I can't say I'm certain. But I'm 99% certain.

Also gnostic/agnostic; it's just not that important to me. I kinda despise labels for the rifts they cause. I'm far more interested in what people believe and why.

[u/TON3R]

Agnostic atheist here...

How are you defining "god"? Does it need to be a personal god, or can a creator outside of localized space-time count as a "god"?

What do you believe to be the naturalistic origins of the Big Bang? What jump-started spacetime?

[u/Laughing__Man → u/TON3R]

We can come up with 1000 different hypothesis for a natural explanation for how our universe started. Two universes could have collided with each other and when they separated a third universe was formed by left off material. The universe could be eternal and cyclical and it follows a cycle of inflation (big bang) and then condenses into back into itself (big crunch). Could be just emergent properties from natural things that exist in the universe; quarks and quantum fields acting on each other that "jump started" space time. Those would all work without a god. We know the natural explanation for how Earth was formed. It would be wrong to say god created the Earth. We know natural explanations for how solar systems work; we dont say god created our solar system. We know how galaxies form naturally and we can observe trillions of gallaxies outside of our own. It would be wrong to say god formed our galaxy. The big bang was a natural event that we just dont fully understand yet. I dont have a reason to believe that is where naturalism ends and something supernatural starts. There is no way to come to that conclusion with the evidence inside the universe. How do you know how far naturalism extends? Do you think everything between the big bang and modern day has been a natural cause?

Religion can be specific theistic worldviews like hinduism or christianity and they each count as 1 theistic model, so we can do that for many atheistic models of reality. Naturalism is already grounded in science with evidence. It doesn't make claims beyond anything we dont know.

[u/TON3R → u/Laughing__Man]

I'll ask again how you are defining 'god'. Does it need to be an interactive omniscient being, or would a 'creator' fit the definition?

Yes, this is a question about semantics, but I feel it is an important one. There are hypotheticals where a naturalistic 'god' could exist, if we merely mean the being with agency that created our presentation of the universe.

If the universe were merely a computer program, for instance, would the lead programmer/programming team fit the definition of 'god'? Entirely naturalistic in the sense that it continues the problem of infinite regress (similar to the idea that the space-time itself is eternal, and it just burps up local universes in Big-Bang episodes), but also supernatural in the sense that these beings would be outside of our presentation of spacetime...

[u/Laughing__Man → u/TON3R]

Either a supreme being of absolute authority over creation or a superhuman being with powers over nature. So either the monotheistic omni god or a god for each force of nature; doesnt matter.

simulation theory is usually an atheistic model of the universe, but it can be a theistic worldview as well. depending on how you define the engineers of your simulation. If you believe that nobody created the creator of the simulation then you are circling back to theism. If this engineer lives in their own world or reality then its just a higher intelligent race above us. I dont really see that as a "naturalistic god" either.

I dont subscribe to simulation theory. If we were proven to be in a simulation then we wouldn't be in reality and wouldn't be natural. I dont see that as naturalism. With natural science we are collecting knowledge on objective reality and we are breaking it down to smaller parts for understanding.

[u/TON3R → u/Laughing__Man]

So are you suggesting a system of infinite regress? Never having a beginning (and likely never an end)?

As for the simulation theory, each creator could have a creator (again, subscribing to infinite regress; turtles all the way down). It may still fit many standard and useful definitions of 'god' (which is where my agnosticism comes in, I don't know if these others hypotheticals exist, thus doubt).

I dont subscribe to simulation theory. If we were proven to be in a simulation then we wouldn't be in reality and wouldn't be natural. I dont see that as naturalism.

Why not? It would be a system of set rules that we are discovering. Everything about a simulation would be "real" as far as we can define reality, would it not?

[u/Laughing__Man → u/TON3R]

To me it sounds like our reality would just be a copy of their reality but simulated, but they can control whatever factors they want to get "answers" like a weird cosmic google or playing some hyper realistic video game. We can imagine systems and worlds all day long. I like fiction and have a good imagination.

Ill count it as an atheistic model of reality, but what evidence do you have in reality that supports that model? I defined truth and reality and my noble cause. natural science gives us the most accurate model of reality with the most supporting evidence. I feel there are questions for the universe and questions from us and there isn't much overlap. I can accept that the universe has a natural birth, life, death cycle like suns and we dont know how long a universe takes to go through a cycle. It could just be eternal and this is the 30th time it went through a big bang, inflation, big crunch cycle, but how does that relate to us when our existence is tied to Earth and we will likely live our entire human existence on Earth.

[u/TON3R → u/Laughing__Man]

We have zero evidence in support of a simulation model, it is merely a hypothetical, like any origin hypothesis for the causes of the Big Bang. It is the realization that we can't discount this as a possibility, which is why I call myself agnostic, because I do not possess perfect knowledge, so I can't make a firm knowledge statement regarding the existence of a god or gods (especially with how wide of a definition). That said, I can firmly state that certain gods do not exist (as they are presented with traits).

I'll ask again, how does your world view deal with the apparent problem of infinite regress?

[u/Laughing__Man → u/TON3R]

God is like simulation theory then. It has no evidence in support of the model. We don't require perfect knowledge. The concept of god can be traced back to our human imagination and not in reality. I defined reality as the state things actually exist. The way you are firmly stating certain gods don't exist is the way any god wouldnt exist. You either think life started spontaneously and evolved randomly or god intelligently designed it. For life on earth we don't have to go back infinitely. The earth is 4.5 billion years old. We argue life started 3 billion years ago. Humans as we exist today 300k years ago. The concept of God has maybe existed in the universe for 300k years alongside humans, but we may only have traces of religion back to 100k years in history. There doesn't seem to be a future possibility we will discover god and the religions in the past, that knew god were correct, were debunked. The universe is on a different scale that is irrelevant to us. Any facts we learn about the universe are just for fun. We are not connected to the universe like we are connected to our planet. Our survival hinges on earth only. From the big bang to now has been naturalism and determinism. The last 4.5 billion years on Earth is the biggest necessary existence for life.

[u/TON3R → u/Laughing__Man]

The concept of God has maybe existed in the universe for 300k years alongside humans, but we may only have traces of religion back to 100k years in history.

This assumes that we are the only conscious beings capable of higher thought throughout the entire history of the universe. Given that several human civilizations (and likely pre-human groups) came up with concepts of a creator god, independent of one another, would seem to indicate it is a natural progression of thought for a conscious and sentient being to follow.

The universe is on a different scale that is irrelevant to us.

Agreed, which is why it seems foolish to assume that we can even begin to ascertain the complexities that exist within the universe (and possibly outside of it). Again, this is where the agnosticism comes in. I am comfortable stating that I do not know that a god of some capacity does not exist (largely because I don't believe humans can logically define what a god-like being would be), so I am fine living in a state of disbelief and skepticisim, with enough curiosity to allow the entertainment of new ideas (or old ideas with new angles).

We are not connected to the universe like we are connected to our planet.

Nonsense, we are made of the very stardust that traces its origins back to the Big Bang. We are connected to the universe, and locally connected to the Earth (just like you are connected to the Earth, but more locally connected to your home country/state/city/family/etc).

From the big bang to now has been naturalism and determinism.

Agreed, what kicked that process off? What started the Big Bang? It is one of the last great mysteries in physics/philosophy. Right now, you seem to be proposing infinite regress (the universe has always existed, and it just expands/collapses like an accordion infinitely). Not saying infinite regress can't be the reality of the situation, I'm just saying it is an area of doubt that exists...

Also, our current understanding of cosmology indicates the universe is flat, and thus infinitely expanding (thus not having a collapsing phase, removing the liklihood of a single universe expanding and collapsing for infinite time).

[u/radaha]

I argue for naturalism and determinism as explanations for how we exist and got to this moment in time.

"Naturalism" isn't an explanation. It's just a limitation on the types of things you believe exist.

My noble cause in life: To believe in the most truths and the least amount of lies as possible in life.

You can't really do both simultaneously. To know the most truths you should continue learning as fast as possible which will inevitably give you false beliefs, and to believe the fewest lies you should believe nothing at all. Polar opposites really.

There is no benefit to believing in a lie or using old outdated information to form your worldview.

What the hell is "outdated" information? That has to be something that was true but is now false, like an old password. Except worldviews are built on necessary truths that can't be outdated.

The gaps are shrinking and there is simply no more room for god to exist.

If "Naturalism" was an explanation for anything you might be on to something. Since it isn't, you haven't explained anything yet, much less the gaps in anything.

In the past the arguments were stronger

Arguments based on logical principles apply just as much now as they did in ancient times. Some of Aristotles arguments for God are just as strong as they were then.

Science will continue to shrink the gaps in the believe of god.

Science is why people believe in God.

supernatural claims, god claims, soul claims, and after-life claims are false.

You must have some kind of argument for these claims?

at one point there were 8 other ancient mankind species

Scientific racism

My argument is that if I can get from modern day (now) back to the big bang with naturalism then that proves my theory that god does not exist.

If you answer the question of what caused the big bang with "I don't have a clue!" Then no, you haven't proven anything. You might as well say you can get back to last Thursday with naturalism. Good for you, but last Thursday also needs to be explained otherwise you don't have an explanation for anything at all.

[u/Laughing__Man → u/radaha]

If "Naturalism" was an explanation for anything you might be on to something. Since it isn't, you haven't explained anything yet, much less the gaps in anything.

Naturalism is philosophical worldview that says without god. It opposes theistic models where the universe requires some necessary being or prime mover.

How is that scientific racism? Im referring to ancient mankind like neanderthals, denisovans, habilis, etc. That is a literal fact about our evolution. We are all homosapiens. We weren't chosen or placed here by god we survived.

This seems to be where any theistic discussion goes immediately. What caused the big bang. Like that is the final curtain. Even if we learned tomorrow the exact cause of the big bang and if we discover it was a natural cause then god would slip right behind that natural cause. Naturalism works with infinite regression. There could be 1000 different ways the big bang could occur naturally. Even if our natural cause for the big bang was 2 external universes got close to each other in space/time and triggered a reaction for ours to inflate. If you want to say god started the big bang and we discover that then you would be wrong. but Im sure you will keep slipping the god card infinitely.

Arguments based on logical principles apply just as much now as they did in ancient times. Some of Aristotles arguments for God are just as strong as they were then.

An argument can be logically sound and not relate to reality at all. Reality doesn't have to follow our intuition or logic. We want truth about reality and philosophical arguments dont give you empirical evidence or testable predictions always; especially not on these big questions.

With the facts we know about the universe we can say that the Earth was formed by natural causes and we can support that with science and evidence. Billion of planets exist everywhere in the universe naturally. Life happening on our planet is a product of what we call nature on Earth. We evolved based on those conditions. We relate to the Earth more than we relate to the universe. every step shows it was random and not guided by a necessary being.

A necessary being is unnatural because it has to exist and nothing can come before it. I cant seem to make the leap from naturalism to super-naturalism because infinite regress works with my model both on earth and in the universe. where does naturalism end and your god begin? do you know? can you know?

[u/radaha → u/Laughing__Man]

Naturalism is philosophical worldview that says without god

A lack of something isn't an explanation. I believe I said that.

The only thing you're doing by affirming naturalism is limiting your metaphysical options to explain anything.

This seems to be where any theistic discussion goes immediately. What caused the big bang. Like that is the final curtain.

There are many final curtains. This is just the one you referred to by claiming that naturalism gets you to the big bang.

Even if we learned tomorrow the exact cause of the big bang and if we discover it was a natural cause then god would slip right behind that natural cause

"Slip"? Either you have an explanation for everything, or you don't.

And you don't.

So "the big bang" might as well be "last Thursday". Your explanation stops somewhere arbitrary, and you just start making assumptions about things prior to that or you leave them unexplained.

That's not an argument at all.

Naturalism works with infinite regression.

Infinite regression doesn't work at all. The infinite chain as a whole continues to be unexplained, so it doesn't even start to solve your problem. All it does is give you more problems, for example this paper explains why an eternal past implies the possibility of contradiction making it impossible.

Im sure you will keep slipping the god card infinitely.

God has necessary existence and aseity. Unless you can come up with something else that exists necessarily, then each step you go back is exactly the same as saying the explanation stops at last Thursday.

Getting us back to last Thursday isn't good enough to explain anything, and neither is the big bang.

Reality doesn't have to follow our intuition or logic.

Oooh boy. Lol. If not, then there's no point in discussing this. Or anything for that matter. If you want to go ahead and concede all your arguments this is a great way to do it.

With the facts we know about the universe we can say that the Earth was formed by natural causes and we can support that with science and evidence

No, you can't. Even if you could explain the big bang, there are a huge number of insurmountable problems between that and now. Just as an example, the big bang has been empirically falsified as it predicts an equal amount of matter and antimatter. Believing a hypothesis that has a universe full of contradictory evidence is the furthest thing from what you can call knowledge.

Life happening on our planet is a product of what we call nature on Earth

The work of James Tour here has been great in exposing the wild amount of problems with abiogenesis and how the researchers themselves act as though they are far closer to even a hypothetical solution than they actually are.

Just like the big bang, if you want to believe this stuff you go ahead, but don't go around calling it knowledge.

A necessary being is unnatural because it has to exist and nothing can come before it.

That isn't a valid argument.

The argument from contingency though, is valid. If there is no necessary being, then everything is contingent on nothing which is absurd. There must be a necessary being, otherwise there would be nothing.

I cant seem to make the leap from naturalism to super-naturalism because infinite regress works with my model both on earth and in the universe. where does naturalism end and your god begin? do you know? can you know?

The line between natural and supernatural is very fuzzy in general. You can argue that everything is natural or everything is supernatural, depending on how you parse those. If natural equals physical, then there are certainly supernatural things and to argue otherwise is absurd.

[u/Laughing__Man → u/radaha]

The big bang has not been falsified as you claim. The scientific consensus and evidence says its the best model for the universe and its an atheist worldview. We dont need to jump to the big bang lets work our way back to the big bang from Earth if you need it to help explain your position. Planets are formed by gravity and gravity is a natural law. So Earth was formed with natural science and not some intelligent necessary being.

The Earth is the necessary being for life existing; not god. We dont need to go deeper into the universe to explain our own existence than the planet. Nature is an emergent property that occurs locally on Earth due to natural factors like position from the sun; and earths tilt and rotational orbit, etc. Life was able to happen spontaneously in these conditions 3 billion years ago when the Earth was still forming. Simple life forms evolving over time into more complex lifeforms. This is natural science and it explains life without god. Every person on Earth is a homosapien and we existed alongside other ancient mankind like I mentioned above. We were not chosen or placed her by a god. We evolved and survived over other similar species. Thats a natural law in nature.

Can you explain how the Earth and life is contingent on your necessary being and not natural laws? how personal is the god you are arguing for? Is he outside space/time or inside the universe? If you are arguing he is only responsible for creating the universe and has no interaction inside the universe? The Earth isn't special compared to any other planet in the universe; its special to us because this is where we can exist comfortably; none of the other planets in our own solar system would be habitable to us because we evolved specifically on Earth in those natural conditions. Human life isn't contingent on the universe. its contingent on factors local to our planet. Is god local to earth or the universe?

[u/radaha → u/Laughing__Man]

The big bang has not been falsified as you claim.

Does it not predict equal parts matter and anti matter? Have you seen any anti matter lately?

The scientific consensus and evidence says its the best model for the universe

"The best" doesn't mean good. In this case it doesn't even mean not falsified. The fact that nobody has come up with something better isn't a good reason to believe it.

Planets are formed by gravity

Large rocks hitting each other in space will virtually always be at high speed causing them to explode. They will not accrete into a planet.

Gasses in space will also not accrete into a planet, or a star for that matter, because an increase in pressure will cause an increase in volume. Gas expansion is far, FAR more powerful than gravity before it reaches a critical mass that is already the size of a planet.

So you cannot explain the big bang, you cannot explain the lack of anti matter, and you cannot explain planets or stars.

The Earth is the necessary being for life existing; not god

I'm using necessary here in the philosophical sense. Meaning that it cannot fail to exist.

Earth did not have to exist. God by nature must exist.

Life was able to happen spontaneously in these conditions

This is a belief with no evidence.

This is natural science and it explains life without god.

No, it isn't. Origin of life studies are pseudoscience. They are not held to the rigorous standards other fields are held to. They engage in wishful thinking at best.

Even if life spontaneously came from rocks, that would still fail to explain life without God, for exactly the same reason I've been saying all along. You are still trying to explain today from last Thursday.

Can you explain how the Earth and life is contingent on your necessary being and not natural laws?

Natural laws are contingent on God.

how personal is the god you are arguing for? Is he outside space/time or inside the universe? If you are arguing he is only responsible for creating the universe and has no interaction inside the universe?

You are the one arguing that God doesn't exist. This is an attempt to shift the burden of proof.

If you can't handle the burden of proof, do not claim to know atheism is correct.

[u/Laughing__Man → u/radaha]

Large rocks hitting each other in space will virtually always be at high speed causing them to explode. They will not accrete into a planet.

Gasses in space will also not accrete into a planet, or a star for that matter, because an increase in pressure will cause an increase in volume. Gas expansion is far, FAR more powerful than gravity before it reaches a critical mass that is already the size of a planet.

So you cannot explain the big bang, you cannot explain the lack of anti matter, and you cannot explain planets or stars.

All of this is just false. Planets do form with natural laws and cannot fail to exist. Planets are necessary objects for life to exist and there are billions of planets in the universe. Planets are necessary but life is not necessary and is not a product of the universe, but the planet. We can observe planets exist but not god, we can say god did not create any planets especially Earth. We know the building blocks of life in chemistry and they were present here on Earth.

No, it isn't. Origin of life studies are pseudoscience. They are not held to the rigorous standards other fields are held to. They engage in wishful thinking at best.

Even if life spontaneously came from rocks, that would still fail to explain life without God, for exactly the same reason I've been saying all along. You are still trying to explain today from last Thursday.

This is just false again. biology and chemistry is peer reviewed in science and that is how we reach consensus and get around personal bias and fallibility. The consensus is we've been evolving randomly about 3 billion years.

Natural laws by definition are not contingent on god. its a purely natural phenomenon in reality. You wont find any concept of god in reality or outside of the human race and we know the human race has only existed for 300k years. We weren't the 1st life on this planet and wont be the last life on this planet. There is a lot of life older than our species that is millions of years old. God is contingent on humans existing in reality.

[u/radaha → u/Laughing__Man]

All of this is just false.

I'm not sure what to tell you. Do you know how fast comets and asteroids are going? Do you know the ideal gas laws?

This is just physics.

This is just false again. biology and chemistry is peer reviewed in science and that is how we reach consensus and get around personal bias and fallibility.

Haha. Origin of life studies are not part of biology or chemistry. They're basically fan fiction.

You obviously haven't really looked into any of this stuff. The more you learn about the world the more atheism will become ridiculous.

[u/Laughing__Man → u/radaha]

You have to deny science to keep your god claims true. That is part of the issue with theist. They want the lie. Evolution is true and it was not guided by a god. The planet is our contingent and necessary being. Its formed naturally without a god. You probably place god outside space/time or the universe where it has no influence on how we came into existence in our solar system on Earth. The science has more evidence and can back up its claims and is able to make predictions. Im not presupposing god and haven't needed god so far in my model. If you want to actually say what you believe and how you think god did it all then go ahead.

[u/radaha → u/Laughing__Man]

You have to deny science to keep your god claims true.

I explained why your claims are against science. You ignored that. I explained why you cannot use science at all. You ignored that. I explained why your worldview as a whole fails. You ignored that.

It seems all you've got left is to use the word science stripped of any actual meaning. You're free to believe whatever you want, but you're not going to convince anyone like this.

The planet is our contingent and necessary being.

That's just an outright contradiction.

Im not presupposing god and haven't needed god so far in my model

You don't have a model. You start at last Thursday, and you've got about a hundred plotholes since then.

[u/Laughing__Man → u/radaha]

Your claims are against the general consensus in science for how planets form naturally in space and for how life began on Earth. You can't get to god unless you presuppose god 1st in your hypothesis for how life happened on Earth. its either the natural science or your god. If your god is just going to use the natural science as the explanation then you have a burden of proof to explain how god is starting life on Earth. Is god the primary mover for life and evolution on Earth or did he do it another way? Your god can't use my science. God is not gravity. You already said god created the natural laws like gravity so the burden of proof is back on you. The science explains reality better than you can with god.

Since human evolved on Earth and we weren't chosen or placed here by god for any purpose we get to live our life freely; each with the same universal human rights we get by virtue of being born human.

[u/Xeno_Prime]

What do you think is the meaningful difference between an atheist who identifies as "agnostic" and an atheist who identifies as "gnostic"? If you were to ask them the following questions:

1. Do you believe any gods exist, yes or no? ("Maybe" = no. The question is not whether they believe any gods are possible, the question is whether they believe any gods exist.)
2. Why/why not?
3. If you were to frame your confidence as a percentage, what would it be?

... then I suspect the answers you would get would be incredibly similar if not identical. So then what's actually the difference between the two? The answer seems obvious imo: the difference is what they each think the words "gnostic" and "agnostic" mean.

Making the difference (and those labels) semantic, redundant, and pragmatically worthless.

[u/pyker42 → u/Xeno_Prime]

This is exactly why I prefer to just use atheist. Well said.

[u/Laughing__Man → u/Xeno_Prime]

You can break agnosticism into agnostic theist and agnostic atheist. Even those labels nudge the person in a direction. For agnostics I would assume they are fence sitting because either some evidence that already exists today persuades them or they think that science will one day prove the existence of god. All the ways we would "know" god from history are debunked and my position is that science will continue to shrink the gaps that god exists.

[u/Xeno_Prime → u/Laughing__Man]

I’m familiar with the quadrant, though no agnostic theist self identifies as “agnostic,” they self identify as “theist.” Here’s the problem:

1. If we’re treating “gnostic” as though it denotes a position of absolute and infallible certainty beyond any possible margin of error or doubt, and “agnostic” as though it denotes anything less than that which admits at least the possibility of error however small, that would make everyone agnostic.

2. If we’re treating “gnostic” as a position of high confidence based on sound reasoning even if it still has a margin of error, and “agnostic” as a position which reserves judgement due to both possibilities seeming too equiprobable to form an opinion either way, that would make virtually everyone gnostic, and the few agnostics in this context would look as silly as a person who decides to be agnostic about leprechauns or Narnia or the possibility that I might be a wizard with magical powers.

Either way, the labels are effectively worthless. They don’t tell us anything important relative to the topic of discussion.

[u/Automatic-Garbage-33]

Hey! I would like to propose a different approach to belief in god. I personally believe that there is no proof you can give for or against God, because people usually conceptualize god as outside of the universe (at least a typical theist) and providing a proof/counterargument for his existence (or lack thereof) will inevitably rely on human intuition (yes, rationality ultimately also boils down to our intuitive notion of what is true. For example, in math/logic, we have the transitivity axiom: if A implies B and B implies C then A implies C. There is no rigorous proof for this, we simply accept it to be true. But it would seem that any argument for/against a God transcending this universe will rely on such axiomatic presuppositions WITHIN our universe). I also think that, even if there were a proof for his existence/lack thereof, that is not what causes you to believe/disbelief in him. Belief is not a rational process. If it were, and you believe strictly in what is true, I would ask you to justify to me why you believe in what is true, and then you would have to rely on some non-rational explanation. I think belief is an deeply personal phenomenon transcending rationality, and that, instead of looking for external reasons to believe/disbelieve in God, you should search inwards, at the things that truly move you, and talk about e belief in those terms. Looking forward for your reply!

[u/Laughing__Man → u/Automatic-Garbage-33]

Depends on the question we are asking then. How did human life come into existence? that question doesn't presuppose a god or deny the existence of a god. Deterministically then we only have to go back 4.5 billion years when our planet formed which is necessary for life to begin. About 3 billion years ago is when life 1st appeared as simple lifeforms and it had 3 billion years to evolve to us and all the other life we see today. Naturalism is just an explanation for life without the need for a creator and it seems to be random vs designed. I think life occurring randomly on Earth goes against our logic and instincts but it doesn't violate laws in reality. Planets have more chance of existing in the universe than life does. When human life goes extinct the planet will be here and maybe some other life would still be alive or would exist again. Human life is valuable to us but it is not necessary to the planet or the universe. God is a complex and nuanced concept as you said. We can trace the origin of god to human imagination and not anywhere in reality. The concept of religion and god has evolved overtime for about 45K to 100K years we no longer need god to explain things and secular answers are more accurate and have more evidence. The Earth and much of life existed before the concept of god that mankind created. We just have to say how the natural science would explain the Earth forming, Nature occurring, and life beginning. Where does naturalism end and god begin? the next layer is always going to be a natural answer, but we already have Earth and life. we are inconsequential to the universe at large. Just the Earth matters to us.

[u/heelspider]

https://expedition44.com/2022/04/12/were-adam-and-eve-the-first-real-humans/

It appears only a minority of American Christians take the creation story literally, and I'm pretty sure we are more fundamentalist in that regard than other places, or at least Europe. So I find your attack on creation stories to be a straw man.

But speaking of creation, why did we get a Big Bang? I'm curious why you put an endpoint to your assessment there.

[u/Laughing__Man → u/heelspider]

Science has an explanation for how the universe formed from the big bang to modern day (now) that doesn't need any god to exist as an intelligent creator. We dont know any facts before the big bang so I chose that as my endpoint. Some facts about god in any religion will contradict with facts we know today. I listed some facts about my worldview to see if they also match up with yours or if they diverge with what your god did personally. My viewpoint starts on Earth and works it way out to space and has evidence and can make predictions. We know it would be wrong to ask: "who" started the 1st wind, we know that wind happens by natural forces local to Earth. Asking "who" created the universe is equally a bad question. There could be 1000 different natural explanations for how a big bang occurs or how universes are formed that dont rely on a prime mover or necessary intelligent being and just one of those has to work to disprove god.

Naturalism is just one atheistic model of reality; like christianity is one theistic model of reality. Naturalism has science to back it up. What christian facts of creation and god do you "know" as true.

[u/heelspider → u/Laughing__Man]

I have this philosophy called Kirkism. It stands for two things: 1) science is real, and 2) Captain Kirk was better than Captain Picard. Therefore now that I have science on my side, it is clear Kirk is better than Picard.

Do you see any problems with that approach?

Kudos to you for believing in science. A good number if not the majority of theists also believe in science. Hell, last I checked most scientists were theists. Science doesn't say one way or another on the subject of theism or atheism. So you can't just say you support science and bootstrap your views outside of science as being equally valid.

[u/Laughing__Man → u/heelspider]

You are missing a premise and you didn't show how science supports your side. You didn't like my adam and eve example earlier because its only a minority of christians that believe it literally, but evolution is a defeater for that minority of christians. They claimed facts and when they were proved wrong we knew their religion was wrong. A theistic model is any religion like christianity or hinduism that tries to prove a god exists by claiming certain facts about how they "know" god; when those are debunked then the religion is only useful as philosophy (cut god out). Deist dont "know" god in any way and cannot form any facts about it. Its pure imagination. The plurality of religion doesn't indicate that even if, none of them were correct, that they were partially correct on the god being part.

[u/heelspider → u/Laughing__Man]

You seem to be saying that since some theists have been wrong about some things, therefore theists are wrong about God's existence.

Please tell me that's not really your argument and I'm missing something. Like you are aware scientists have been proven wrong too, right. Every academic discipline holds different views today than a hundred years ago...theology is the only one that gets criticized for it.

[u/Laughing__Man → u/heelspider]

Just separate the truth and lies out of each religion. The natural from the supernatural. I dont think you are being honest why theology is criticized academically. They made claims and we evaluated it for truth. If a scientist believed in a geocentric model of the universe he would be able to submit the paper to be peered reviewed but he would be laughed out.

If theists are getting answers from god then they would have to be correct answers. If god is learning at the same time as humans that slavery is bad then he isn't absolute or whatever other qualities you want to attribute.

What is your view on a god? How do you know what you know about god?

[u/heelspider → u/Laughing__Man]

Just separate the truth and lies out of each religion. The natural from the supernatural.

You don't need to have religion to be a theist, and you don't need to be a theist to be in a religion. But even in religion, many don't take the mythology literally. In general you should attack the hardest targets (steel manning) instead of the weakest targets (straw manning).

If a scientist believed in a geocentric model of the universe he would be able to submit the paper to be peered reviewed but he would be laughed out.

What are you talking about? That is what science believed. You think people worshipped Jesus and the notion of orbits just came to them in prayer?

If theists are getting answers from god then they would have to be correct answers

Ahhh. So however I interpret your words that is on you?

What is your view on a god? How do you know what you know about god?

The first question is far too broad. The answer to the second is life experience, contemplation, and the arts, probably in that order.

[u/Laughing__Man → u/heelspider]

I can't steel man your argument if you are not providing one. I'll assume deism, and you have some homebrew concept of god that exist just in your imagination. It sounds like a fictional character you created. Have that personal belief, but it isn't truth and doesn't exist in reality. My noble cause makes me want to believe in truths and not someone's imagination.

The point is if a scientist today still believed in a geocentric model of the universe; despite all the data we have to the contrary. Theist in religion at least are giving evidence on how and why they believe their god. We can evaluate their claims. Im not gonna keep guessing what you believe.

[u/heelspider → u/Laughing__Man]

Have that personal belief, but it isn't truth and doesn't exist in reality. My noble cause makes me want to believe in truths and not someone's imagination.

Right back at you, friend, and happy new year. I would suggest your pursuit of truth would be even more noble yet if you didn't assume other people were wrong.

We can evaluate their claims. Im not gonna keep guessing what you believe.

I thought you as the OP wanted your own beliefs challenged.

[u/Laughing__Man → u/heelspider]

What am I imagining? You believe 99% of my model and you are just adding in something without explanation or reason. I dont assume other people are wrong, I would love for each of us to have the truth simultaneously, but that would defy the law of non-contradiction.
Im saying 2+2=4 and you are saying 2+2+god=4. I have my proof without god. naturalism didn't fail or come up short. if god has no value or doesn't effects the outcome in that equation then its superfluous. You only have the concept of god because it was an old concept that helped explain the world when we didn't know better. No amount of time into the future will our understanding come back to god. science isn't trying to prove or disprove god as you noted. Now we know the truth on god; it was old-thinking.

[u/GuybrushMarley2]

Yeah, but you can't just disprove all the gods that have been put forward by religions

You have to disprove even the most infinitesimal possibility of any imaginable entity that could fit the definition of a "god". Can you do that?

"There is simply no more room for God to exist". Absolutely not we are nowhere close to understanding the origins of the universe or even basic facts about it's current state. It's likely that we never will no matter how much time we are given or how much technology advances.

[u/Laughing__Man → u/GuybrushMarley2]

The people in history that came up with those concepts for god did not have a justified true belief. They used their best understanding to make sense of the world that was unknown to them. We dont need a god to create life on Earth. We dont need a god to create the planet. We only need to go back 4.5 billion years to explain our existence in the universe. All concepts of god would be Earth centric and come from human imagination. Its true that right now there is no scientific proof of a god being in reality. Religions through history are always just evolving to keep up with our new understanding of how the natural world works and how human ought to act. The common denominator here is human kind. Its natural to ask how did we get here and its not a problem if we were wrong before as long as we keep using the best models that explain how things work. The top models of reality that explains the universe or life on earth are atheistic models. You have to take gnostic theistic religions like hinduism and christianity on face value with their creation claims since they were divinely revealed and it doesn't match u with what we know today about how the planet formed and life started.

[u/GuybrushMarley2 → u/Laughing__Man]

I just love it when people ignore the content of my comment and just use it as a platform to repeat what they already said

it's just like a real televised "debate"!

[u/Laughing__Man → u/GuybrushMarley2]

when someone wants to share their imaginative god we can test to see if it is in reality; thats why we only judge the religions in history and that are practiced today. Any concept of god seems to come the mind 1st and not something they are observing in reality 1st. Things that only exist in someones mind by definition are imagination and fictional. Since god is only revealed to certain people in their minds makes it imaginative. We dont need to understand the origins of the universe to understand how life began on Earth and evolved.

[u/GuybrushMarley2 → u/Laughing__Man]

We can't test whether most imaginative gods are in reality.

[u/Algernon_Asimov]

My argument is that if I can get from modern day (now) back to the big bang with naturalism then that proves my theory that god does not exist.

Incorrect. All it proves is that god didn't interfere in the universe's development in a detectable way, or not at all.

I'm an atheist, because I lack a belief in god. I can't claim to be a gnostic atheist, because we don't currently know that god doesn't exist. That knowledge awaits us in the future. But not now.

[u/Laughing__Man → u/Algernon_Asimov]

How do we even know the concept of god if not for religion or philosophy. The concept can exist in our human minds or as fictional characters but I am only looking to say what is true about reality. If we haven't proven god with any existing religion and science hasn't proven god then we can conclude now that god doesn't exist in reality. If god is not detectable in any way in reality we just don't include god. When we detect god we can then make claims on god.

[u/Algernon_Asimov → u/Laughing__Man]

How do we even know the concept of god if not for religion or philosophy.

If a god exists, it can be found or detected or discovered somehow. Obviously not now. Obviously not using any science or technology or knowledge that we currently have. But we're continually expanding our range of knowledge and ability to know things. One day, that expanding circle of knowledge will overlap with god... if such a thing exists.

I am only looking to say what is true about reality.

Sure. Me too.

But you've taken a step beyond reality. You've gone from "I don't see a god" to "There is no god to see". You can't possibly prove that. That's an unprovable and unjustifiable statement. That's like a toddler who doesn't have object permanence yet assuming that, when they cover their eyes, mummy ceases to exist. Mummy's still there, even when you can't see her.

The fact that we can't see a god now is not yet sufficient grounds upon which to say that we will never see a god.

You have no basis for your gnosticism. You can't possibly know for sure that there is no god. All we know is that we haven't found it yet. There are more corners of the universe to look in, before we can declare once and for all that there is no god.

[u/Laughing__Man → u/Algernon_Asimov]

If a god exists, it can be found or detected or discovered somehow. Obviously not now. Obviously not using any science or technology or knowledge that we currently have. But we're continually expanding our range of knowledge and ability to know things. One day, that expanding circle of knowledge will overlap with god... if such a thing exists.

This is an argument to the future fallacy. My argument is god is not something that exists in reality, and analyzing the religions in the past with gods reveals that it was never a justified true belief to begin with. If the concept of god has always existed as fiction in the minds of humans then we dont need to wait if it will appear in reality; we can make the conclusion with the knowledge we have today. Science isn't trying to disprove god it is just trying to give the most accurate description of reality. God isn't a being that created the earth and humans. That was just old thinking of the past. The secular answers for how Earth formed and life began work better with the facts we have today. God is a hypothesis that has never gotten past that phase in the scientific method.

[u/Algernon_Asimov → u/Laughing__Man]

300 years ago, we didn't know electricity existed. 200 years ago, we didn't know radiation existed. 100 years ago, we didn't know extrasolar planets existed. Do you see where this is going? Every century, every generation, every decade, every year, we're discovering new things about this universe we live in. We don't know what we'll discover next year or next decade or next generation or next century. There are still unexplored parts of the universe out there. We have to go explore them.

I'm not saying we will discover a god through this exploration: I don't think there is a god to be discovered.

I am saying that it's too early to call off the search, and consider the non-existence of gods to be a done deal. That time is not yet here.

[u/Laughing__Man → u/Algernon_Asimov]

Its not too early to call off the search; its over. We identified where god originated. In the human mind. Its pure imagination. Its not like we have any real data in reality to go off. We can only go off the existing data on god we get from religions and those have been debunked. Science gives better secular answers. We will continue to never see god in reality. Your agnostic belief is not justified. If a new religion comes out with a god claim we will test that claim for truth, but science doesn't disprove a negative it just affirms reality. We are looking now at the smallest parts that make up reality.

[u/RecordingLogical9683]

The issue is that some god claims are inherently infalsifiable, so the honest thing to do is say that science can never prove or disprove them. It's on the same level as simulation theory, alternate universes or string theory. I think that acknowledging that science and logic has it's limits is important to avoid turning our beliefs on how (current) science should work into it's on kind of dogma and fall back into the same trappings of religion.

[u/Laughing__Man → u/RecordingLogical9683]

God was never a true justified belief. It always existed in the minds of humans. The people who first thought of the concept of god(s) didn't find anything in reality that suggested god. It was a placeholder for information that was unknown to them. Sure, god is an idea, but has it ever had any evidence of it in reality outside of our human minds? If it starts in the imagination it needs to pass some thresh hold of truth and exist in reality in some way. Do fictional characters move you in ways you might change how you act in reality? sure. Do fictional characters exist? no. Will we have to wait 10,000 years into the future to make sure this fictional character never existed? no. Science is not having any trouble figuring out reality. It doesn't reach dead ends or crumble or circle back to god.

Simulation theory is a model of reality, but it has zero evidence. Its not equal to the top theory of reality in science. Maybe people want to believe in simulation theory because it sounds cool, but I gave my reasons for wanting truth.

[u/Nebridius]

We observe caused causes in the world. The desk lamp causes the room to be illuminated. But the bulb is caused to glow by the electricity. If the electricity caused itself then it would have to have pre-existed itself which is absurd. Therefore, the electricity was caused by something else. There couldn't be an infinite chain of causes to explain the electricity because if there were no first cause there would be no subsequent effects. By elimination the only option left to explain what we observe is a first uncaused cause. Could we call this first cause God?

[u/Laughing__Man → u/Nebridius]

If it is always a natural cause before it then where does naturalism end and your god begin? If the question is how did human life happen then we would have to go back deterministically to the origin of life. Our origin is 3 billion years ago when life began on Earth. Our human origin is 300K years ago when we lived alongside other ancient mankind like neanderthals, denisovans, erectus, homosapien(us). We are a direct product of nature on Earth. If you feel the need to personify nature then wouldn't it be mother nature as god? I dont feel the need to personify nature. our planets nature happens because of things deterministically like the position of the sun, Earth tilt, axis rotation, etc. Seems like all the necessary factors for life occur naturally and randomly. Planets cannot fail to exist in the universe and each planet has its own nature. Our nature happens to support life currently.

[u/Nebridius → u/Laughing__Man]

"If it is always a natural cause before it"

Take the example of a train carriage being pulled along a rail sloping upwards connected to the next carriage.

Are you saying that there is an infinite number of carriages to explain that last carriage rolling upwards [and no locomotive]?

[u/Laughing__Man → u/Nebridius]

We have the question we are trying to answer: How did human life happen on Earth? Then we dont need to go back 14 billion years. We just need to go back 3 billion years for life starting and 4.5 billion years for how the Earth formed. That isn't infinity. That is a finite amount of time we need to explain how humans got here. The necessary object for life is Earth; which was formed by natural laws like gravity. Gravity is a natural phenomenon; nobody controls gravity.

[u/Nebridius → u/Laughing__Man]

Is this thread about how human life occurred or about whether god exists [title]?

[u/Laughing__Man → u/Nebridius]

Its the same question. When our ancestors asked themselves: how did human life happen on Earth they came up with the answer: "god" for every question they couldn't answer. Each layer from how did life begin, to Earth forming, to the sun forming, and stars forming, they answered with god. They didn't see something in reality external to themselves that indicates a god being existing. They saw that humans exist in reality and worked their way backwards to get an answer. Our human intuition led them to believe that since they have intelligent minds and they were created by parents that the chain just continues backwards to the 1st life. Now we know better with science and how it was random and spontaneous which goes against our intuition, but corresponds with reality. We dont need to go back infinitely we just have to go back to when the Earth formed to explain how life started. God only exists as a fictional character in our minds and not objectively in reality.

[u/Davidutul2004]

First of all sorry for you having to work on new year

And second I'ma go simple,what is your definition of god? I'm asking because many people have certain definitions of god different from others. Some go with the attributes of omniscient,omnipotent and other "Omni" like values while others go with the idea that God is the source we origin from, whether that refers to the universe we live on or our very planet we live on What it seems to me based on your argument is that you refer to the typical religious god?

[u/Laughing__Man → u/Davidutul2004]

I'll say it like this: Gnostic theists would be like hinduism or christianity where they "know" god through some revelation. They have made claims about this god and how they created things and how it wants people to act. Agnostic theists are just creating some homebrew concept of god that they cannot explain at all and are usually also making no claims on what this god is; they just like the word.

None of the gnostic theistic models of god would explain reality as we understand it today. One issue is they want god to be outside space/time and also be knowable and personal. I listed some of my worldviews and most religions practiced today might conflict with some of those facts I listed; age of the universe, earth, life on earth, evolution. Its a binary choice either it was random or intelligent designed and the evidence leans to random.

[u/Davidutul2004 → u/Laughing__Man]

Cool Tho I'm agnsotic atheist The reason for my agnsoticism is rather not only because there is neither evidence pro or against god,but also cuz god lacks a clear definition in the first place

[u/chungusenjoyer69420]

Your position has so many unfounded presuppositions that it's basically pointless. Instead of making claims with assumptions, I want to hear your actual observation of reality.

[u/Laughing__Man → u/chungusenjoyer69420]

I listed facts I would include in my worldview in my post, age of the Earth, when life began, that we evolved. We can trust the science and god is a fictional character and not something that is found in reality; it what it boils down to for my observations.

[u/ArguingisFun]

I’m as agnostic about gods as I am dragons or fairies, and while it wouldn’t kill me to be pleasantly surprised, I am not holding my breath.

[u/Laughing__Man → u/ArguingisFun]

Do you think one day we will discover Superman? or will he always be fiction? How can you disprove Superman?

I hope you would be able to say that Superman is just fiction and you can separate fiction from reality.

[u/ArguingisFun → u/Laughing__Man]

I have zero problem separating fiction from reality, thanks. But, your example is kind of silly, because Superman is just an alien… so… 🤷🏻‍♂️

[u/Laughing__Man → u/ArguingisFun]

sounds like you are agnostic on superman then if you define him as just an alien. The closer to the Superman we "know" you understand it becomes less possible. Why be agnostic on dragons and fairies? we can trace those origins to oral and written stories and not as objective things that existed in reality. Why have a placeholder for one day dragons will be discovered?

[u/ArguingisFun → u/Laughing__Man]

No, not really, in the comic book he is just an alien. Aliens most likely exist. Dragons and fairies do not. What are you having trouble with?

[u/DangForgotUserName]

Attaching “agnostic” and “gnostic” labels to atheism is yet another symptom of religious societal privilege. The labels play into theists hands. other domains don't have such knowledge or lack of knowledge labels applied to them, it's just for gods. gods are imaginary so the agnostic label helps theistic doubt by showing atheists have doubt too.

What other topic do we attach such labels to when describing personal beliefs?

It’s just word games attempting to legitimize unsubstantiated religious beliefs. We don't attach these labels on any other position. If we say we dont beleive in a multiverse, no one objects and says "don't you mean you are agnostic?" It only happens with religion.

It is a double standard aimed at atheists. The whole agnostic / gnostic idea is flawed too. I can make a case that my position should be considered agnostic or can make the case that my position should be considered gnostic….if I play with words.

Such ‘knowing’ is a red herring anyways. This is, has been, and always will be about beliefs. An atheist is someone who doesn’t believe there is a god. An agnostic is someone who doesn't know…that they are an atheist.

[u/TarnishedVictory]

Gnostic Atheist here for debate: Does god exist?

Do you mean "Does a god exist?", or are you talking about something specific?

The claim "some god exists", is vague and therfore it is unfalsifiable.

So, are you speaking colloquially and are you talking about some specific god?

My position is I am a gnostic atheist which claims to "know" that god doesn't exist.

Sounds to me like you're talking about something specific, as you're referring to it as a title or name, rather than a simple notion of a deity. Would you please define this god for us then?

And while you're at it, explain how you know this god does not exist.

I argue for naturalism and determinism as explanations for how we exist and got to this moment in time.

Those are the only explanations we have evidence for, so I'm with you on this.

My noble cause in life: To believe in the most truths and the least amount of lies as possible in life. I want to only believe in what is true in reality. There is no benefit to believing in a lie or using old outdated information to form your worldview.

Me too. That means I won't hold beliefs that I don't have sufficient evidence for. And fallacious arguments I'll try to avoid, such as the black swan fallacy.

My position is that we have enough knowledge today to say objectively whether a god exists or not.

Colloquially for sure, but if we're adhering strictly to formal logic and reason, it wouldn't be correct to falsify an unfalsifiable claim. And if you're doing so as an inductive or abductive argument, then that doesn't get you to a solid conclusion, it only gets you to no gods seem to exist. But if you're talking about something more specific than a vague notion of a deity, then sure, you might be able to make a case, depending on how you're defining this god. I don't tend to define gods, I let the people making a claim about them define them. So how are you defining this god?

The gaps are shrinking and there is simply no more room for god to exist. In the past the arguments were stronger, but as we learned it becomes less possible and as time goes on it becomes more and more of a possibility fallacy to believe in god.

I agree, so this means we don't have good evidence to accept the claim that some god exists. But if this is your basis for claiming no gods exist, how is this not a black swan fallacy? Or if it's inductive, how are you using an inductive argument to make a concrete conclusion? Are you speaking colloquially? Or do you have a definition of this god that you have evidence, not lack of evidence, but evidence that it does not exist?

If we're talking about yahweh/ jesus, then I'd say that god does not exist and my evidence is the claims of the bible that we know to be false, that describe this god. Is that the god you're talking about?

Science will continue to shrink the gaps in the believe of god.

I agree. But science also respects the notion of falsifiability. Science will not claim that no gods exist, because that is falsifying an unfalsifiable claim.

Neither of us believe any gods exist. The claim that no gods exist is a claim that requires evidence though, and an absence of evidence is not evidence for absence.

(It is evidence for absence in some situations, like in a closed scope where we have access to that entire scope, but all of existence and a vague definition, do not meet that. )

[u/MysterNoEetUhl]

My noble cause in life: To believe in the most truths and the least amount of lies as possible in life. I want to only believe in what is true in reality. There is no benefit to believing in a lie or using old outdated information to form your worldview.

What's the foundational justification for this cause? Is it simply grounded in a brute fact/intuition that your life is good?

Also, what's the ultimate "benefit" of pursuing truth?

[u/Laughing__Man → u/MysterNoEetUhl]

If I believe in too many falsehoods I could be manipulated into causing myself or others suffering. Committing to the truth holds me accountable to being moral, respectful, aware. It help me be good with that noble cause at my core.

The ultimate benefit of pursuing truth would be the progress we have made as a species over 300k years. Intellectual integrity, moral responsibility, enlightenment, respect for others, personal growth, overcoming human fallibility, just societies, social progress.

[u/MysterNoEetUhl → u/Laughing__Man]

The ultimate benefit of pursuing truth would be the progress we have made as a species over 300k years. Intellectual integrity, moral responsibility, enlightenment, respect for others, personal growth, overcoming human fallibility, just societies, social progress.

Ok, setting aside the challenge defining all of the above big terms in a meaningful and universal way with and the further challenge of judging in a universally-accepted way whether these goals are all being met, is this just a brute-fact good for you? Meaning, the above is just self-evident (A=A) to you and you have no further justification for pursuing these ends, right?

[u/Laughing__Man → u/MysterNoEetUhl]

are you asking how do I discern truth? depends on the claim. A lot of things we know because of the knowledge we accumulated over 300k years as a species. We are already standing on the shoulders of people that have done the work for us on many topics in science, philosophy, understanding our human nature. Some things are my own subjective experience and beliefs. My noble cause is personal. I dont want to suffer in life and I dont want other people to suffer in life because this is the only life we have and no afterlife. I think a promise of god or an afterlife justifies the suffering of others in life unnecessarily. Everyone should have the same universal human rights we have by virtue of being born human.

[u/MysterNoEetUhl → u/Laughing__Man]

My noble cause is personal. I dont want to suffer in life and I dont want other people to suffer in life because this is the only life we have and no afterlife.

Everyone should have the same universal human rights we have by virtue of being born human.

So, these are just your preferences, right? You have no deeper justification for believing these things are true other than that you like them. Is this fair to say?

[u/Laughing__Man → u/MysterNoEetUhl]

Human rights are only justified by humans. There isn't a deeper justification than us affirming we each have universal human rights by virtue of being born human. Nature doesn't care about our human rights; its a force of nature. True means in accordance with fact or reality. Humans are objectively true in reality. You want freedom and liberty and not have your free will imposed on by others with free will. We are all homosapiens and have the same evolution. The other ancient mankind that used to live with us died out. I can only use facts to make up a worldview.

[u/MysterNoEetUhl → u/Laughing__Man]

There isn't a deeper justification than us affirming we each have universal human rights by virtue of being born human.

Can you prove that we have these rights or do you simply assume them as a brute fact?

[u/Laughing__Man → u/MysterNoEetUhl]

How do you decide which humans have less rights than other humans? Any human right you extend to yourself should be extended to others. In history we have observed what happened when people stepped on other human's rights and we have learned a right and wrong from this behavior. Some people suffered from being slaves, but maybe it's a good fit for you. How do you know you would suffer as a slave?

[u/ima_mollusk]

It is impossible to conclude no specific being can possibly exist with some properties that somehow justify calling it "God".

The proper position, therefore, is to assume, but not conclude, that such a "God" does not exist. And we should continue presuming a "God" does not exist unless and until evidence is presented otherwise.

The problem then becomes what type of evidence could possibly justify belief in a "God".

In my assessment, such evidence has not been presented, so I continue to presume no "God" exists.
In my further assessment, such evidence cannot exist, making justification of belief in a "God" impossible.

This results in the completely justified continued presumption that a "God" does not exist.

Through this same methodology, we also continue to presume that an Easter Bunny, Great Pumpkin, Cthulu, Lord of the Leprechauns, and Casper the Friendly Ghost do not exist, although evidence for those things may be possible to some degree.

Evidence for a "God", by definition and by design, is not.

[u/reclaimhate]

My noble cause in life: To believe in the most truths and the least amount of lies as possible in life. I want to only believe in what is true in reality. 

Is it true that trees and shrubs exist?
If so, how can we tell the difference between the two?
What about plants that exhibit both tree-like and shrub-like characteristics?
How about the willow tree, more genetically related to shrubs than other trees? It's definitely a tree, right?
How about the rhododendron? Assuredly a shrub, but more genetically related to trees.
So if you seek to believe the most truths, do you believe in the truth of trees and shrubs?
Do they objectively exist? Are they real categories?
Is there any such thing as a tree or shrub, or is it simply a distinction made up by human beings that doesn't represent a true fact about the plants on this planet?

[u/Laughing__Man → u/reclaimhate]

Reality exists and inside that reality trees, shrubs, and humans objectively exist.
we use language to describe reality to each other, language is abstract and is made up by humans and doesn't exist naturally in reality.

I define truth/true as in accordance with fact or reality.
Reality as the state of things as they actually exist

We do make up the distinctions of different lifeforms and by the law of identity it works out. a = a, b = b. if they correspond to reality then its true.

[u/reclaimhate → u/Laughing__Man]

So does the concept tree correspond to reality?

If we made up the distinction, how can trees objectively exist?

[u/Laughing__Man → u/reclaimhate]

I dont understand. my experience would say I exist and I can see other things in reality that are not me. a=a and a does not equal b. The tree exists independently of me or my language or distinction or category.

there is no true word for tree, because language is abstract and something we create, but the tree exists in objective reality and separate from our own experience.

[u/teetaps]

I think that god exists. But us calling “it” a “god” was a grave mistake of naïveté.

There’s likely things in this universe that are so beyond our comprehension that they’d blow our minds just to see a fraction of them. We can barely wrap our minds around spacetime, gravity, dark matter, the Big Bang… can you imagine what it could be like if some sentient being were able to figure out everything? Like, literally, everything?!

That, to me, is “meeting god.” It’s the moment where someone figures out the explanation for it all. The kind of absolute knowledge that can say, “I can predict the position of a random star in 300 million years, or estimate the trajectory of an atom of nitrogen in your lung when you took your first breath.” That is god, to me. Absolute knowledge that can change the very fabric of reality at will. Not through some mysterious power, but through simple calculations. By knowing the rules of the universe well enough that you can make math, look like magic.

It’s why my favourite superhero movie is Dr. Strange. It obviously doesn’t do any actual sci fi stuff, it leans into “mystical” really early on, but I like where it starts. Here’s a neurosurgeon, one of the highest academic professions, who has to challenge how he sees the world. He gets told about ways to experience reality by bending the fabric of nature itself. That’s god, to me. And I think that maybe, someday, humans might arrive there. It just won’t come as a surprise, and won’t be as fantastical as dr strange. But someday, maybe we’ll incrementally work our way to time travel, singularities, immortality, whatever. But the point is… “god” was just a placeholder for things we didn’t understand. We’re understanding more and more, every single day. And we should be happy about that.

[u/AxiomaticSuppository]

You say you "know" god doesn't exist, but is it possible that something exists that today we would perceive as a god (or gods), but given sufficient time and effort to explain, could be explained within the confines of scientific or naturalistic processes?

Another way of raising this perspective is contained in Clarke's third law, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

As framed, I realize this doesn't counter your position that you know gods don't exist, because a god in your definition is something that is supernatural. Hence if something exists that appears to be supernatural but is actually explainable with additional tools and an enhanced understanding that we don't have today, then it still isn't a god.

That said, if something were to reveal itself to us today that we all readily agreed had god-like properties, and its existence was inexplicable based on our current understanding of the universe, how, as a gnostic atheist would you react?

(The Question for the Gnostic Atheist) Does one deny its god-like properties and suggest that it will eventually be explained as non-god like? Or does one admit, at least in the immediacy of our current understanding, that it is, in fact, a god?

I'm not trying to pose a muddled version of the "god of the gaps" argument. The basic idea with "god of the gaps" is that if we can't explain some readily observable phenomena with science, then it serves as evidence of god. Instead, I'm positing a scenario in which something presents itself that we haven't previously observed, we readily acknowledge that the thing itself is god-like, and it can't be explained with current science.

Why does this hypothetical matter for the gnostic atheist position? To answer this, consider the "Question for the Gnostic Atheist" I posed above. I suspect you would favour the first option, denying that it's a god, and that there must be an explanation that we just aren't able to comprehend today. But doesn't that mean that the gnostic atheist position is unfalsifiable? On the other hand, if you are willing to acknowledge that the thing is a god, then isn't your position actually more consistent with agnostic atheism?

[u/Uuugggg → u/AxiomaticSuppository]

I really cannot abide the "if X turns out to be true, would you believe it" arguments. I know there are no unicorns. If unicorns show up on Neptune, then guess what, I was wrong. This is not a scenario worth bringing up.

[u/AxiomaticSuppository → u/Uuugggg]

Isn't acknowledging your willingness under certain scenarios to admit that you're wrong more consistent with agnostic atheism than gnostic atheism? "I don't think it will happen, but if it does, then I'm wrong" is different from "It won't happen, period."

[u/Uuugggg → u/AxiomaticSuppository]

I already anticipated your response in my main reply to OP:

Or they use "agnostic" in a way that literally everyone has to be agnostic, making the discussion not about anyone's opinion but the meaning of the word.

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/comments/1hqmybs/gnostic_atheist_here_for_debate_does_god_exist/m4qwd8e/

[u/onomatamono]

You are barking up the wrong tree because this is debate an atheist not a theist.

It's clear from any rational perspective that religions are cultural relics based on ignorance and magical thinking.

Where theists struggle is to demonstrate any evidence of gods in general and they can never get over that hurdle so their particular flavor of compartmentalized insanity is beyond the pale with burnt offerings, blood sacrifice of the messiah, lakes of fire and other infantile nonsense.

[u/Cogknostic]

A theory is not a proof. Science does not prove things, it builds models. To assert that no god exists is to defy science, naturalism, and all you believe in. This does not mean a god does exist. It means we have absolutely no way to tell.

Now, I will agree with you that all the good evidence lines up to support the proposition that there is no god. Regardless of how much evidence there is and how good that evidence is, it is not proof. What we get from science and naturalism is 'No good reason to believe in god claims." Agnostic atheism!

With that said, I will tell you for a fact that an all-caring God does not exist. This god is easily debunked by the fact that no caring being could ever create a world like this.

A god that exists beyond time and space does not exist. Existance, by definition, is temporal. A god that exists for no time and in no space, does not exist at all. It is the same thing as a non-existent god.

A deist god may or may not exist. Who cares because he would be completely irrelevant. A god that creates stuff and vanishes is useless.

A pantheistic god is just about as useless. This is the god that is everything. Everything is a manifestation of the god thing. It is in all things and holds all things together. Well, we already have words for things. We call them things. Calling them god is superfluous.

Can you even be a gnostic atheist with regard to all gods? Why waste your time? The burden of proof is on the atheists. By being a Gnostic Atheist you are asserting that you can debunk every concept of god. What's the point when the burden of proof is on the theists?

I don't know of a version of god that is not fallaciously argued or asserted without good evidence. I tend to debunk some and hold others as completely useless, but I don't do as you have done and place myself in the position of debunking all gods. There is no reason to do that. Besides you set yourself up for the ever-shifting goalposts of the theists. As soon as you do demonstrate your version of a god does not exist, every theist on the planet will tell you that you have not disproved their god.

Agnostic Atheism is a much firmer position until the theists identify which god they are talking about. Keep the burden of proof where it belongs, on the backs of the theists.

[u/Such_Collar3594]

>My argument is that if I can get from modern day (now) back to the big bang with naturalism then that proves my theory that god does not exist.

That isn't a valid argument. the conclusion can be false if the premise is true.

[u/Carg72]

I'm hesitant these days to say whether I'm a gnostic or agnostic atheist simply because I try to avoid such labels. I lean toward god not existing, and I pretty much live my life as if there wasn't a god.

[u/smbell]

This seems like a rather amusing example of Betteridge's law of headlines.

[u/ImprovementFar5054]

I agree. I'm not taking an agnostic position on it to be philosophically pure, any more than I am taking an agnostic position on the Easter Bunny to be philosophically pure.

I am an advocate of rationally justified belief on sliding scales of probability. Nothing can be known with 100% certainty. We can't know 100% that the Sun will rise tomorrow..but based on a sliding scale of rational probability where it is highly unlikely the Earth's rotation will stop or the Sun will blow up, I can make a positive claim, for practical purposes, that it will.

This is how I feel about gods, unicorns in tutu's at the center of galaxies, teapots orbiting Mars, and leprechauns. I don't give the god question more creedence or probability simply because it has higher social gravitas.

[u/wizzardx3]

"supernatural claims, god claims, soul claims, and after-life claims are false." - I'm completely with you here, but I don't think that these can be said to be false beyond any possible counter-example.

eg: hypotheticaly we can be in some kind of simulated universe, where all these things are true at the same time.

There's no scientific evidence for these things, and it's science that seems to make the most useful predictions, but it's only an incredibly internally consistent model of reality.

I think the more interesting argument is why sentient creatures need to have belief systems at all, rather than the specifics of the belief systems.

[u/SunnySydeRamsay]

Many fallacies in defending the existence of a god are only fallacies when the burden of proof lies on the claim a god exists.

When that burden shifts to claiming no god exists, God of the gaps becomes fair game to at least reach an agnostic conclusion. That's ultimately all you really need to dismiss a gnostic atheist position. The fact set you present doesn't disprove the existence of god; in fact, it presents plenty of opportunity to insert God into gaps.

You can be gnostic with specific god claims. It gets hard to be gnostic about every definition under the umbrella of god or deity when it's so broad and there are so many individual-level interpretations, many of which are simply unfalsifiable.

"My argument is that if I can get from modern day (now) back to the big bang with naturalism then that proves my theory that god does not exist." It means, at best, you have an inductive route through Occam's razor to proclaim god does not exist. Deductively, this is a non-sequitur. Even if you can, there's still the gap of "what caused the Big Bang" that's regularly latched onto.

[u/taterbizkit]

There's no reason for a god-of-the-gaps to exist, but that's not the only kind of god atheists reject.

A deist god or Spinoza's god could exist and we'd a) never know it existed and b) could never prove it doesn't exist.

Ultimately, when pinned down to specifics, you can produce a solid inductive argument that god probably doesn't exist, or that there's no reason to believe it does exist. I don't see how you can get farther than that, or approach any kind of deductive certainty.

[u/onomatamono]

You have to define god and I'm assuming you mean the sole creator of the universe with a vested interest in human beings. Having said that, even if it's some nebulous, amorphous creative force, you have know way of claiming to "know" there is no such thing. Declaring not to know is a more intellectually honest response, but certainly we can say the abrahamic gods are almost entirely devoid of rationality, wholly implausible and completely untethered from reality.

[u/Prowlthang]

Edit: The fact that you can get from naturalist theories to an arbitrary point (the big bang) is not evidence of no god, that’s fallacious thinking. The evidence for a lack of a god is the evidence that there is no god. Neither physics nor archaeology disprove god (unless you start cherry picking gods). /EditEnds

Here we go again. Agnostic Atheist - A Phrase That Should Be Consigned to the Rubbish Heap of History

The word/phrase agnostic atheist aggravates the hell out of me and here is why - it insults me as a human being, a rationalist and an atheist. What’s more, if there were a metaphorical war between ‘truthers’ and ‘theists’ common usage of a phrase such as this would be a victory for the ignorant.

Prior to explaining why I seem to have a visceral reaction to such a phrase I would like to quickly summarize a couple of basic, to me obvious, reasons why one wouldn’t coin or use it.

First, obviously, its an oxymoron.

Second, and much more egregious is it uses an equivocation of language guaranteed to cause confusion and make it harder for people to discuss these topics accurately. There is a reason vocabulary in a field is specific to that field. Anytime we take the definition of a word in one area of study and use that definition in another area of study (where it is already used and defined) we are (probably) creating a logical fallacy.

We see this all the time when theists say idiocy like, ‘The theory of evolution is just a theory,’ or ‘ “All things have a cause, so the universe must have a cause which we call god.’

That is a short step from, ‘You can’t be an atheist because you can’t provide conclusive proof of the non-evidence of god.’

I want to emphasize that, every time you use the phrase agnostic atheist you are reinforcing nonsense arguments like, “ ‘You can’t be an atheist because you can’t provide conclusive proof of the non-evidence of god.’

If we start conflating the philosophical meaning of agnosticism with what the commonly held religious definitions are it means every time there is a debate or conversation we have to stop and explain the context of the words and define them, making them functionally useless.

And finally, why this really offends me is because it suggests that both the people using this phrase and those of us who identify as atheists think we are inherently unreasonable, intellectually dishonest and/or simply unintelligent. As an atheist my opinions aren’t based on faith and change in the light of reasonable evidence. This may or may not apply to all atheists but it is the standard we apply to most aspects of our life except religion. Thus if you really want to use the phrase, ‘agnostic atheist’ it creates a presumption that my beliefs are as irrational as a theists.

Basically it is falsely equates ‘atheist’ with ‘believer in non-god religion’. Let’s do a little experiment.

Let’s pretend the word ‘atheist’ means someone who doesn’t believe that there is life on our moon. It is their believe that based on the sum total of knowledge available to them and humanity life does not exist on the moon. If tomorrow we went back and found life, moon worms. confirmed it, brought back samples from 2 expeditions, confirmed they weren’t contaminated, saw different DNA etc. I would no longer be an atheist, I would believe in life on the moon.

That is the expectation. The base state. Humans may be certain of something based on their knowledge today but in the face of adequate satisfactory evidence they will change their mind. Atheists claim not to be operating on faith. When you qualify atheism with ‘but if there is some evidence out there’ your statement becomes redundant. I choose to presume (and am frequently wrong) that an atheist isn’t just joining a tribe and trumpeting the same lines but has made a choice based on the evidence available and that they continue to do so.

Language is incredibly important. It conveys meaning directly and subtly. The subtext of using this phrase is ‘atheism is a blind belief like any other unless we qualify it’. Further it says, ‘We won’t use the same rules for logic, language and reasonableness that we expect from others.’

It is a stupid phrase that adds no context, value or clarity and frankly, having now watched some you tube videos about it, undermines the credibility of all other arguments by made by people who use it because it shows how susceptible they are to faulty logic.

[u/kyngston]

Let’s suppose new evidence is found that supports theism. For example, intercessory prayer towards one specific god, has a statistically significant impact on the outcome, when tested with full scientific double-blind repeatable rigor.

Would you change your mind? Or would you continue to be a gnostic atheist, despite scientific evidence to the contrary?

[u/Stuttrboy]

I mostly agree with the gnostic claim. My problem with the gnostic claim is that there are a lot of definitions of gods that actually exist. The sun or universe is god, Julius and Augustus Caesar both made gods by the Roman Senate or god is love.

My argument is that those aren't gods.

[u/Peterleclark]

I’m an agnostic atheist.

Having said that, I know that nothing supernatural exists.

If there was a sentient creator or prime mover, which I doubt, but don’t know, it had to have existed, or exist within nature as far as I’m concerned.

[u/rustyseapants]

All religions and gods are products of cultural artifacts, if you think that the Greek and Roman gods are mythology, and so is Christianity Judaism and Islam, that's the only constant, we create religion  and gods.