"God doesn't Exist"- Claim or Conclusion

[Edwardo Piet]

Extraordinarily complex deities require extraordinary complex evidence though. Evidence is expected and it isn't there. The maxim that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence doesn't apply when evidence for something is very much expected to be there if it were really true. And when something is so absurd as to be unfalsifiable then that itself is very much evidence against its existence too.

---

I think this is a particularly astute observation.

Thanks.

I am interested in how the "simply lack belief" atheist will respond.

It's an absence not a lack

I haven't heard anyone seriously offer that particular definition of God. If they did my guess is that they forgot to add a qualifier to make it clear that they were talking about the physical universe.

Well generally speaking they tend to not give specifics. In which case it's hard to know what they're talking about. I am still not sure what the concept of something being existent but non-physical is supposed to mean. As far as I am concerned the non-physical can't influence the physical and so isn't even part of our reality. As soon as something can effect the physical then that itself makes it a part of our physical reality and therefore physical.

Nevertheless the point is well taken. Not all definitions of God are coherent.

Indeed.

Those ideas are usually offered up by believers who are not as inclined to theology as perhaps those who contribute on AF are. Christians like me, who are theologically inclined, take it for granted that they are talking about the God of Classical Theism. And even then, I am thinking of particular aspects of the Divine, like Necessary Being, since I also believe that the fullness of the Godhead is greater than can be conceived by limited creatures.

I've never seen a clear definition of those things. Every believer seems to have their own definition of God.

Once gotten down to specifics I mean. I generally think of the definition of God as a deity or personal creator of the universe who is not outside of the universe but is in fact the first part of the universe that then created the rest of the universe. But this is only regards to deism. Religion can't really factor into deities and make any sense. Talking about Jesus who was a human person and speaking about what he did in the Bible and all the miracles he did is no different to reading from any other book and saying that that applies to the deity that one believes in.

Even if there were a deity that created the rest of the universe.... as far as I am concerned to go from a god of some kind to a Christian or Muslim or Hindu or whatever kind of God is a complete non-sequitur. It makes as much sense as writing my own book and starting my own religion and saying that's what god is like.

The idea of God being a necessary being sounds like God is necessary because he is the first cause. But it's not necessary that the first cause is God.