Why are atheist...atheist?

[Ace Otana]

LoL, I just capitalized the words but that is not a tatrum.

Good, because only a calm and cool head can debate properly. Think we both can agree with that one.

Oh yeah, it already been established that I'm referring to strong atheist ignorant because they assert the claim God does not exist without any logical reasoning behind this assumption. Therefore, what said in that first post does not apply to most people here. What you see with all the arguing, is the result of people not reading.

You responded to my first post, which was me questioning some of the things you wrote. That's where it started.

---

This is inherently false. I do not think I don't know, I know I don't know and that gives it far greater explanatory power within these circumstances. The claim was made that one believes unicorns do not exist, based on observation. However, observation requires one to understand the nature of that which is being observed. If the nature of the object cannot be observed then then a belief cannot be made based on the observation. A unicorn's natures is easily understood and can be searched for. God's nature cannot. This fact makes the characters very dissimilar and gives one the explanatory power to say that God can neither be confirmed nor denied based on observations. Furthermore any made up character which has the property that it created the universe is necessarily a misunderstood character because you would then be talking about God. So he differs from every other made up character because, any other character would then lack that property. This gives him much explanatory power

---

Explanatory power comes from the ability to explain the unknown. God cannot explain how the universe formed, god cannot explain how anything works. Of course it requires evidence which must be based on measure, repeatability and testing. Something that can be verified/falsified. If not, then it has no explanatory power.
God is not falsifiable, that's the problem. There is no value in the claim and so no explanatory power.

Example.

If I say I want to find a fire-breathing dragon named Rex. All I have to do is look for this dragon.

If I say i want to find a fire-breathing dragon named Rex who created the universe. I would still have to look for him.

If there is no evidence of such a thing, it is rational and logical to dismiss it. Why assume it exists if there is no evidence to suggest it's existence?
Also, ever heard of absence of evidence is evidence of absence? Like there is an absence of evidence of change in my pocket. So based on lack of evidence of there being any, there is evidence of lack of change in my pocket.

However this fictional char is very different from God, because I assumed he was a fire-breathing dragon.

But you also just assumed that god exists. Why?

If this dragon made the universe then how can I know he was dragon.

The universe exists, how do you know it was a god that did it?

I can't really know anything about his nature actually because I do not understand enough about creating universes to make any claims its nature. Therefore, I cannot really assume anything about this Creator that would allow me to look for it.

The beings you invent are just concepts. If you think there is a god, you can look for it if you wish, however, rejection of such ideas remains a rational conclusion.

See the clear explanatory power of not knowing from knowing and how the two imagined characters are significantly different.

No, because that's not explanatory power. Your god beliefs have no value, there for, no explanatory power.

From what I remember, and, I could be wrong, Occam Razer states that one should not use esoteric concepts as means to explain something.

Occam's Razer states that the simplest explanation is most often and likely correct. And that you only opt for a more complex explanation if there is evidence to support it. That is Occam's Razer.
http://www.desy.de/user/projects/Physics...occam.html

As for complex assumptions, the only assumption made is that from nothingness, or nothingness with a bias (which not really nothingness then), came something. This cannot be denied surely one of these possibilities is correct.

The simplest explanation which is most likely correct is that the universe exists, and we don't know how. Saying god did it doesn't do anything. The more assumptions one makes, the more wrong you probably are.