RE: Neil DeGrasse Tyson on Disproving God
March 10, 2017 at 4:39 pm
(This post was last modified: March 10, 2017 at 4:40 pm by Mister Agenda.)
This is why going for a highly specific definition of atheism is fruitless. I am an agnostic atheist. But, I'm a gnostic atheist towards some versions of God (or gods). If the definition of a God includes contradictions, I don't just 'lack belief' in that God, I'm convinced it necessarily doesn't exist, like a married bachelor. That's my position on any God of Theodicy, its proposed attributes are contradictory and when theists try to defend the tripod of the stool of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God; they wind up doing so by sawing one of the legs off (often the omnibenevolence when they think power is God's most important attribute). If the God or god is claimed to have done something and the evidence is that the thing in question didn't actually happen (like a global flood that the Chinese and Egyptians didn't notice even though those civilizations were extant at the time the flood supposedly happened), I don't just lack belief in that being, I conclude that it, or at least that version of it doesn't exist. Thor may be real in some mystical way, but it's clear that lightning happens without his intervention.
But a deistic god, or a retired pantheon that only did some of the things attributed to them, or an omnibenevolent God that created the universe but in only very powerful but not omnipotent and doing the best it can...those I lack belief in. There's not good reason to think any of them are real and they can't all be real in any case; but they're not incoherent and don't have evidence against their actions, so while I think they're unlikely I can't dismiss them entirely.
And that's not even getting into science fiction 'gods'. I think a being should have to supernatural to qualify as a god, but some would give the title to sufficiently advanced aliens, and I'm not even sure they're unlikely; though in my opinion they're unlikely to be very close to us.
Are you on drugs right now?
But a deistic god, or a retired pantheon that only did some of the things attributed to them, or an omnibenevolent God that created the universe but in only very powerful but not omnipotent and doing the best it can...those I lack belief in. There's not good reason to think any of them are real and they can't all be real in any case; but they're not incoherent and don't have evidence against their actions, so while I think they're unlikely I can't dismiss them entirely.
And that's not even getting into science fiction 'gods'. I think a being should have to supernatural to qualify as a god, but some would give the title to sufficiently advanced aliens, and I'm not even sure they're unlikely; though in my opinion they're unlikely to be very close to us.
irontiger Wrote:Mister Agenda Wrote:I exist, however if someone proposes a version of me that flew around the moon yesterday, that version of me doesn't exist. Is that clearer?
You conclude you exist but you could just be a simulation. Your existence is finite and temporary do you really exist ?
Are you on drugs right now?
I'm not anti-Christian. I'm anti-stupid.