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 There is no benefit to believing in a lie or using old outdated information to form your worldview.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

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/CptMisterNibbles → u/MajesticFxxkingEagle]

Yes, That was my point that you missed. Learn to distinguish when someone is being colloquial and when one is making a claim in a debate and is using a specific definition of a term.

[u/MajesticFxxkingEagle → u/CptMisterNibbles]

I understood your point just fine the first time. I disagreed with it.

I’m not only saying your definition that you use for debate is far outside the colloquial usage—I’m saying even in a professional academic philosophical setting hardly anyone uses “know” that way. Again, the consensus position is fallibilism.

More broadly, my point is that even if you insist on using an infallibilist definition of knowledge (which is ridiculous imo, but words are polysemous, so you do you), you can’t say someone else is “incorrect” for using the definition of “know” that aligns both with the vast majority of colloquial and academic use.

[u/CptMisterNibbles → u/MajesticFxxkingEagle]

You missed that I am the one using fallibilism as the assumed position for the colloquial usage of "know" and the user I replied to is the one that isnt. Their strawman "you dont *know* if santa claus isnt real?" implies they are using it in the infallibilist sense.

E: I freely admit my annoyed rebuttal may have muddied this issue. Its this original response that uses the uncommon infallibalist argument specifically just to be a dick.

[u/MajesticFxxkingEagle → u/CptMisterNibbles]

I think you misread their response too. They were arguing for fallibilism and they were using the Santa Claus example as a reductio ad absurdum. Essentially saying that if you can’t even say you know Santa isn’t real, your usage of “know” is useless.

[u/CptMisterNibbles → u/MajesticFxxkingEagle]

They didnt use the term "know" though, they used the term "conclude". I think they werent making the point you assume they were, and instead were dishonestly feigning infallibalism for the express point of being a dick. They were not honestly parsing the original users meaning.

[u/MajesticFxxkingEagle → u/CptMisterNibbles]

I think their core sentiment is the same regardless of if they used “know” or “conclude”

But in any case, we should probably just tag and ask them rather than continuing to speculate on on their behalf u/uuugggg

[u/Uuugggg → u/MajesticFxxkingEagle]

Get a room you two.

I said "conclude" because the quote was "that does give us a conclusion."

and the reply was "It doesn't, though. Not at all"

The guy then replied with "know" so apparently that's equivalent in his mind.

I don't give a fuck.

This, my guys, is why I starting by saying this discussion is exhausting.