Atheist struggling to answer a question i often propose to myself

[Harry Nevis]

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.

Yes, it IS inconceivable that someone actually thinks the christan god is found trough reason.

---

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.

Geez.  It does nothing of the kind.  You're tripping.

---

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.

Redefining words to suit your prejudices, huh? The arrogance of telling people what they REALLY believe is fucking amazing.

---

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.

A proposition is either true or not true. So with respect to the proposition "God(s) exist." there are only two options. The proposition is either true, the theist stance, or it is not true, the atheist stance. The meaningful definition of atheism I have given does not force atheists to claim metaphysical knowledge; but rather asks them to own where they stand with respect to the question.

(Well, maybe there is a third option called 'I don't care' but I do not seriously believe any AF member falls into that category.)

God(s) exist.

Really? Show me evidence.  I'll wait to see if you have any, but no one has been able to come up with any for a few thousand years, so I don't accept your claim as of yet.

And, I don't care if any gods DO exist.  I doubt that I'm the only one here, but keep telling us what we REALLY think.  It's a real hoot.

---

As for whether belief in God is necessary, I would say probably not for everyday living and scientific inquires about natural phenomena. However, taking a stand is a necessary condition for the fundamental things that I think really matter in life such as values, meaning, and purpose.

So, by not saying "god exists" or "god doesn't exist" my life has no value, meaning or purpose?  Or just the values, meanings and purpose you want there to be?  How fucking arrogant.

---

That seems like a reasonable objection for many naive god concepts. It doesn't apply when the evidence is ubiquitous such as the fact that beings persist in there being despite change or the general observation that causes have regular effects.

---

That is your evidence for god? Meh.

---

The god issue is demonstrably irrelevant to all three.  So what If there isn't god-value, god-meaning, or god-purpose?  That doesn't diminish, affect, alter, or eliminate what value does exist, what meaning does exist, and what purpose does exist.

You are only expressing, here, your dissatisfaction with god-absent value, meaning, or purpose...that's a you problem, not a logical problem.  I'm not suffering under the same dissatisfaction.

It absolutely does because you have never presented any absolutes on which to rest value, meaning, and purpose. All you have ever offered up are circular reasons that go nowhere..

Why do you need absolutes?