Why are atheist...atheist?

[Alastor]

There's a simple way to make this point to you. The atheist, strong or weak, makes fewer unproven assumptions to reach his conclusion. The atheist does not let "god" stand in for "i don't know". Even at the very foundation of the argument, when all attributes of god are removed from the discussion, the strong atheist does not refer to what is left as god. The strong atheist does not assume that a god is necessary, or that any old thing that the deist can conjure up is by definition god. The strong atheist does not rely on philosophical arguments for or against god, nor logical arguments, but evidence. A position which arises from evidence, or lack of evidence, can hardly be said to be a position of ignorance.

The strong atheist has constructed a model which fits with our observations (that gods are not present in the universe),
makes predictions (that you wont find any gods)
and can be falsified (by finding god/s).

By your definition a strong atheist is not someone who asserts God does not exist not then. They really admit they do not know too, which is what I originally said was wiser.

I interpreted the definition of strong atheist which was proposed as someone who would assert that God does not exist.
In which case your argument would not apply to them.

This model also cannot apply to God, because you'd have to define God before you could observe him. If the only thing you assume is that God is an entity who created the universe, then where would be the first place you'd go to start looking for him?

The proposition of an unknowable god is by definition an argument from ignorance. It may be the supreme argument from ignorance, in that it's premise is the assumption that some things are simply unknowable, and that what we do not know or cannot know is then god.

Not that somethings are unknowable, but are currently unknown. I, also, do not assert that it is God, but that it might be God. Which is a true a statement since God's nature is currently not known.

Even your god is not an unknowable god, in that it is a creator god. If a god were a creator god we would have knowledge of that god through the very obvious effects of it's creative act. Your own belief in a creator god does not equal an unknowable god.

The only position I have put forth is that God probably created this universe due to its rules. The definition I gave of God, for me, was any entity that, at least, has the property that it created the universe. Anything else is not known by this definition. The only knowledge we have of this creative act, is obviously the universe. As for the ability to discern whether a Creator exist or not from this creative act does not directly follow from the act of creating. In other words, it is fully possible to have knowledge the of the Creator without the ability to recognize it as knowledge of the Creator. This fact follows precisely from the fact that the nature of God is not known and why I say you cannot attempt to observe or look for God if you don't know his nature.

Does this make your position ignorant?

No, because I have never asserted anything. I only reason that God probably created the universe. At no point do I think I know what I know I do not know, this is ignorance.

In any case, if you want to use the unknowable god as your premise, you're going to have to give evidence to support it. That is where your conclusion is flawed, your premise is an unsupported assumption, and as such any conclusions you reach based on this premise will be lacking in worth or value compared to any conclusions based on a premise which does have evidence to support it.

Not necessarily. My premise does not require evidence because i have never asserted anything true. My premise gives reasonable cause to believe, which, inherently, surrenders itself to the possibility of error. If it didn't, then that would mean I was putting forth reason as fact. Therefore, it is already understood that any conclusions generated from this premise cannot be considered evidence and I have never tried to present them as such. If you think I did, then you have misunderstood.

In the event that the position of no gods is determined to be supported by fallacious reasoning, it would simply leave the position in a state whereby it can only be argued for by belief, by faith. This would make it equal to the position of an unknowable god, not lesser, or ignorant, but standing on exactly the same footing. We would still of course be left with the observation that gods are not present in the universe, that magic is not a cause for any observed effect.

I agree with most of this statement. This describes my beliefs in a nutshell and I've never demonstrated or implied they were anything otherwise. The only statement that I have a problem with is

"We would still of course be left with the observation that gods are not present in the universe, that magic is not a cause for any observed effect."

Because you would have to define God, something which has already been admitted to be currently unknown, by my definition at least, in order to observe God. Therefore, no observation could tell you that God is not present, as you've stated. Magic is only what you do not understand. Understanding the laws of nature doesn't in anyway disqualify what we see as possible evidence for or against God. I agree, that it is fully rational to withhold assent to any assertions about God based on the fact that one cannot discern what is God from what isn't (your modern atheist). My only premise has been that you cannot assert God doesn't exist from any observation you might make.

Again, for the record, I am a "strong atheist", so your questions ARE directed at me, I've repeated myself here so that you cannot simply hand wave me away by stating that I'm no "true strong atheist". One does not have to be a "true stong atheist" to raise objections to your premise, but since you have repeatedly asserted that only a "true strong atheist" may reply to your argument.........I throw my name into the hat.

No, as I've said you are not a strong atheist by the definition I had assumed, which is someone who would assert that God does not exist. I gather you have no beliefs about God, which is just an atheist, by the definition I assumed.

Here is a link for you, this might help you to understand the many objections that have been raised to your op, and subsequent posts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy

The argument you have made as to gods existence is a form of the cosmological argument. That god can be argued to exist based on some property of the cosmos that demands his existence. A proof by logic.
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Kalam
Specifically it is the fine-tuning argument.
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?t...g_argument
It also touches on the argument from design.
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?t...rom_design
As well as the first cause.
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?t...irst_cause

Is there anything in this post that you feel needs further clarification?

I have saved these pages and will look over them. I've only taken one philosophy course, Western philosophy, so far so I haven't had the chance to take in such detailed positions and arguments against this common position. However, of the examples from the links I did look over, they appear to apply to those who would make assertions about God from cause or intelligent design, which I have never made.