Religion

DetlefK

(16,495 posts)

12. I have seen both definitions used in practice.

Tue Jul 9, 2019, 09:39 AM

Jul 2019

Some atheists say that they haven't seen evidence and that they won't believe in him until they have seen credible evidence.
Some atheists declare that God doesn't exist, without clarifying how they came to that conclusion.

I'm an agnostic because of the philosophical/logical background that came with my science-education.
* I know that for simple mathematical reasons it is not possible to experimentally prove/disprove God, which means the only way to prove/disprove him is some sort of theoretical argument.
* And there can never be a theoretical argument why God does/doesn't exist until we perfectly understand the nature of reality and of our universe... which is in turn mathematically impossible as us humans are finite entities.

TL;DR Humans will never be able to either prove of disprove God's existence, because humans are finite and God is infinite. Only an entity that is infinite like God (-> another God) could actually find out whether there is a God or not.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

57 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

"Atheism is inconsistent with science, says Dartmouth physicist Marcelo Gleiser " [View all] edhopper Jul 2019 OP

The hard atheism straw man is theists' go-to argument. Act_of_Reparation Jul 2019 #1

Then immediately followed by the assertion of rejection of faith is "faith" Major Nikon Jul 2019 #4

Yes, atheism is inconsistent with science. But so is the concept of religion. DetlefK Jul 2019 #2

Given the complete absence of any evidence for a God edhopper Jul 2019 #3

That's the difference between faith and knowledge. DetlefK Jul 2019 #7

Good point. edhopper Jul 2019 #15

"Shouldn't we ask whether God's existence is provable/disprovable at all?" Act_of_Reparation Jul 2019 #6

While at the sime time pre-supposing God's non-existence. DetlefK Jul 2019 #9

So, your argument is "I can't prove god exists because I don't know what god is"? Act_of_Reparation Jul 2019 #13

No, my argument is that we don't know whether the question even has an answer. DetlefK Jul 2019 #19

I could substitute "vampires" for "god" and using the same argument... Act_of_Reparation Jul 2019 #21

Actually you should first define your terms Major Nikon Jul 2019 #8

Define your terms!! SCantiGOP Jul 2019 #10

I have seen both definitions used in practice. DetlefK Jul 2019 #12

You can be both an agnostic and an atheist Major Nikon Jul 2019 #20

Any god worthy of the name Mariana Jul 2019 #22

Yes. Even the 1) Bible god hisself says we could and should look for proofs Bretton Garcia Jul 2019 #40

About that last part Lordquinton Jul 2019 #44

Because we are finite and can't prove him edhopper Jul 2019 #46

That depends on the definition of "proof". DetlefK Jul 2019 #48

If those things edhopper Jul 2019 #50

There is a difference between finite and infinite gods: DetlefK Jul 2019 #47

But? If an infinite god promises to deliver a billion pizzas at 10PM? Bretton Garcia Jul 2019 #49

Thor does indeed fly through the air on a chariot pulled by two goats. trotsky Jul 2019 #51

That fire-breathing dragon... NeoGreen Jul 2019 #52

Nothing is absolutely certain in an Infinitely complex universe. Bretton Garcia Jul 2019 #54

Well of course. trotsky Jul 2019 #56

Yeah. Bretton Garcia Jul 2019 #57

Numbers are infinite. Voltaire2 Jul 2019 #53

In which case ... Bretton Garcia Jul 2019 #55

That's where the faith part comes in? Zambero Jul 2019 #5

That's really just where faith starts Major Nikon Jul 2019 #17

How do you have a belief in disbelief? Thomas Hurt Jul 2019 #11

you don't edhopper Jul 2019 #16

True. guillaumeb Jul 2019 #25

Because it's not a belief edhopper Jul 2019 #34

I accept that this is your view. guillaumeb Jul 2019 #35

Yes we know you insist on defining atheism for atheists. trotsky Jul 2019 #36

No, I insist on defining what it is. guillaumeb Jul 2019 #37

You seem to have fallen into a neverending Arguement Sketch... NeoGreen Jul 2019 #38

Pretty much. trotsky Jul 2019 #39

The best part is he defines himself as both a deist and a theist Major Nikon Jul 2019 #41

'god' is the proffered hypothesis... NeoGreen Jul 2019 #14

Yes edhopper Jul 2019 #18

only need to disprove them to the extent.. uriel1972 Jul 2019 #23

True. guillaumeb Jul 2019 #24

Why is God unprovable? edhopper Jul 2019 #27

Ask God. guillaumeb Jul 2019 #28

If I could ask God something edhopper Jul 2019 #29

One might be able to ask, in a sense, guillaumeb Jul 2019 #30

The unclear edhopper Jul 2019 #31

How convenient. A one-time answer in the form of a human before the first camera was invented. AtheistCrusader Jul 2019 #33

Substitute purple people eater for god and the circular logic works the same Major Nikon Jul 2019 #42

Only the one eyed, one horn, flying variety edhopper Jul 2019 #43

Such a boring argument in the abstract... Moostache Jul 2019 #26

Sure. And not believing in the fucking easter bunny is inconsistent with science. enki23 Jul 2019 #32

I get this feeling when theists try to talk science Lordquinton Jul 2019 #45