Atheist struggling to answer a question i often propose to myself

[Neo-Scholastic]

i'm wondering if you can help me im an atheist but am struggling to answer a question i often propose to myself it goes something like this...as far as we can see humans right now are as intelligent as we can get, but growing up we do not have the intelligence capacity to comprehend our surrounding. ...What if we, right NOW are at this point in time, at our current level of intelligence are in the same position as the Ant and Toddler? Could there be an unknown Force, Entity, that just the same as we are unknown to the ant and the toddler to his or her world, that is looking at us as we look at the ant?

Yes, but such an entity would not be the God of Classical Theism. Such an entity would be just another being in a world of beings. From Aristotle and Plotinus to Anselm and Aquinas God is the inconceivable & ultimate hypostatis in whom everything "moves, lives, and has its being." He is the eternal and self-sustaining Being-in-Itself, the "I AM." And unlike some distant and grand invisible being, God makes Himself known to all through the light of reason and through the world's intelligibility.

[The Grand Nudger]

He's not talking about gods anyway, he made that explicitly clear. Not gods, not alien life forms, and presumably not human beings. Entity in some sense that evades description or categorization as one of those.

[budsa11]

He's not talking about gods anyway, he made that explicitly clear.  Not gods, not alien life forms, and presumably not human beings.  Entity in some sense that evades description or categorization as one of those.

Yeah thanks, i was beginning to think i wasn't being clear, i'm very comfortable with my atheism, although i do class myself as an agnostic as i understand it's impossible to disprove a negative, like you cant prove fairies don't exist, but i'm 99.9% sure they dont.

there's been some interesting points so far thanks for posting.

[Whateverist]

i'm wondering if you can help me im an atheist but am struggling to answer a question i often propose to myself it goes something like this...as far as we can see humans right now are as intelligent as we can get, but growing up we do not have the intelligence capacity to comprehend our surrounding. ...What if we, right NOW are at this point in time, at our current level of intelligence are in the same position as the Ant and Toddler? Could there be an unknown Force, Entity, that just the same as we are unknown to the ant and the toddler to his or her world, that is looking at us as we look at the ant?

Yes, but such an entity would not be the God of Classical Theism. Such an entity would be just another being in a world of beings. From Aristotle and Plotinus to Anselm and Aquinas God is the inconceivable & ultimate hypostatis in whom everything "moves, lives, and has its being." He is the eternal and self-sustaining Being-in-Itself, the "I AM." And unlike some distant and grand invisible being, God makes Himself known to all through the light of reason and through the world's intelligibility.

Frankly I'm much more comfortable with the idea of infinite layers of ever more mega beings each oblivious to the many layers below them than I am with the idea of a single God which somehow finite little we have decided must be the "ultimate", "eternal", "self-sustaining" omega-everything.

The former which our new member brought up at least keeps in mind perspective where yours just glibly assumes things we are in no position to know.

[Neo-Scholastic]

The former which our new member brought up at least keeps in mind perspective where yours just glibly assumes things we are in no position to know.

That is precisely my objection to atheism...it devolves into nihilism. When you say "we are in no position to know" you are basically saying that reason is unreliable and that the world is not intelligible. Holding either or both is self-defeating.

[The Grand Nudger]

No, it doesn't....sigh.  Atheism is about a persons status of belief in gods.  Nothing more, nothing less.  Sometimes I wonder, if all of a persons problems with atheism turn out not to be problems with atheism...whether -they- even know what their own problem with atheism is.

Are you in any position to know whats happening, this instant, on the other side of the universe, Neo? Does not being in a position to know that make you a nihilist? Does your not being in a position to know that mean that reason is unreliable or that the world is not intelligible? No, no, no.....and no. Just.....no.

[Brian37]

He's not talking about gods anyway, he made that explicitly clear.  Not gods, not alien life forms, and presumably not human beings.  Entity in some sense that evades description or categorization as one of those.

Yeah thanks, i was beginning to think i wasn't being clear, i'm very comfortable with my atheism, although i do class myself as an agnostic as i understand it's impossible to disprove a negative, like you cant prove fairies don't exist, but i'm 99.9% sure they dont.

there's been some interesting points so far thanks for posting.

Like I said before, what we don't currently know does not require gap filling, but should be strictly based on the observation of testing and falsification and peer review built on the foundations of the things we l already  do know. Blind speculation is a cluster fuck to solid scientific method.

Ocham's razor is the simple principle to never add any extra baggage to what you are trying to figure out. Simply put, whatever you can utter is meaningless without testing and falsification and thus, superfluous and will screw up your data and formulas. 

If you merely want to speculate that is simply a game of "if ifs and buts were candy and nuts". Solid scientific method does not work like that.

Now none of what I typed means I think humans should behave like emotionless robots. No. I merely mean that when we come together to figure out how something happens, there is only one universal principle that works regardless of personal bias.

The "why" is what laypersons get stuck on far too much, the "how" is what scientific method seeks to answer.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Atheism is about a persons status of belief in gods.  Nothing more, nothing less.

Again, that is only the trivial definition of atheism you and others have chosen to embrace, i.e. one that applies applies to infants and the unaware. The alternate and meaningful definition of atheism is a intellectual negative stance with respect to the proposition that "God(s) exist."

I do not consider you so young or so indifferent as to not have taken a stance.

[mordant]

Atheism is about a persons status of belief in gods.  Nothing more, nothing less.

Again, that is only the trivial definition of atheism you and others have chosen to embrace, i.e. one that applies applies to infants and the unaware. The alternate and meaningful definition of atheism is a intellectual negative stance with respect to the proposition that "God(s) exist."

I do not consider you so young or so indifferent as to not have taken a stance.

Nothing about atheism requires this "negative stance" if by that you mean taking up a knowledge position that there are no gods. It only requires seeing no valid reason to afford belief to any deities.

I believe that you are describing gnostic or "hard" atheism which I daresay most atheists who have really considered their philosophical position do not subscribe to.

Why? Because invisible beings and realms are inherently unfalsifiable hypotheses ... therefore, no knowledge position for OR against can be justified.

That's a rather technical distinction of course. What theists want, and what we withhold, is belief given without a requirement of evidence / substantiation / logical argument.

[The Grand Nudger]

Again, that is only the trivial definition of atheism you and others have chosen to embrace, i.e. one that applies applies to infants and the unaware. The alternate and meaningful definition of atheism is a intellectual negative stance with respect to the proposition that "God(s) exist."

I do not consider you so young or so indifferent as to not have taken a stance.

That would be a stance regarding the status of their belief in gods...and still doesn't matter, since it's not a descriptor regarding their position on nihilism, nor is any statement you referenced indicative of literally....anything.....you concluded.

"Apples, therefore Bingo, and in addition freight trains do not exist."