(July 27, 2015 at 11:22 pm)ignoramus Wrote: Would it be arrogant of me to say I am a gnostic atheist with respect  religious Gods but not the other possible gods?

I don't even think it would be that arrogant to say that with regards to "gods", let alone God.

Naps, problem with "gods" is that there is no definition? Does god = creator of us?, the earth?, the universe?
Are you saying that hitech space dudes who came to earth and put us here in testubes 4b years ago is absolutely impossible? Wouldn't that fall under a "god"?

It's hard to get the religious bullshit definitions out of our heads though.

(July 28, 2015 at 7:12 am)ignoramus Wrote: Naps, problem with "gods" is that there is no definition? Does god = creator of us?, the earth?, the universe?
Are you saying that hitech space dudes who came to earth and put us here in testubes 4b years ago is absolutely impossible? Wouldn't that fall under a "god"?

I think the reason some people are hard (gnostic) atheists is that their definition of god or God is something logically inconsistent and therefor impossible.

To me, the likelihood of any one "god" depends entirely on how it's defined. The Christian Gaud, for instance, is inherently paradoxical because he can't possibly have the qualities he's described with and still create this universe and behave the way he allegedly does toward humans. In terms of Gaud, I am a gnostic atheist.

Going beyond that, you have the problem of defining exactly what a "god" is, what it would have to do to qualify as one, and what qualities it would have. To me, the very idea of a "god" is a human construction that has no correlation with non-fictional reality. Even if we somehow find something in the natural universe that humans decide to call "god," I believe it will likely have to redefine the term entirely, since part of the definition of gods as I understand them is that they pretty much have to exist outside of natural processes. If we find something that earns the name "god" but is a part of the natural processes of the Universe, I would still not consider that thing a "god" in the traditional sense. By their very definition, the gods have to exist outside what we know as reality.

Anyway, what I'm getting down to is that I pretty much consider myself a gnostic atheist because I think all evidence points to the fact of god being an abstract, human concept that could not possibly "exist" outside human minds and the ways in which we record them. Trying to prove god exists is like trying to prove that particles with mass can travel faster than light speed. Until evidence to the contrary surfaces, I'm confident in the assertion the laws of reality say no to god just as they say no to backward time travel.