Proof that God exists

[Simon Moon]

Conceptions of gods that have not been presented are of no concern to me . And are ultimately as baseless as gods that have been presented to me .  

Paraphrasing: Conceptions of matter that have not been presented are of no concern to me . And are ultimately as baseless as matter that have been presented to me.  Therefore you don't believe in dark matter because no one has any idea what it is.

Sigh  

False analogy. We know matter exists, it can demonstrated. It manifests in reality.

Gods, not so much. We have drastically insufficient evidence to support any god claim that has been presented. If someone wants to present a new god claim, and support it with evidence and reasoned argument, we will listen and evaluate the claim.

Because justification wise both are equally as baseless

 

Huh?  

True.

All supernatural existential claims are drastically unsupported by demonstrable evidence and reasoned argument. Whether it be fairies or gods.

Is there evidence demonstrating a god . No . Then atheism as the lack of propositional evidence of a god is true .

 

Awfully presumptuous and a bit arrogant to say evidence for god does not exist.  All you can say is that evidence has not yet been presented to you.  Or you could say that evidence has been presented, but you refused to see it as evidence.  But to say it does not exist... that's illogical.

I actually agree with this, somewhat.

But fact is, most of us here are quite aware of all the 'evidence' provided by theists, and it just does not hold up to proper application of critical thinking and scrutiny.

The proof? The vast majority of theists do not accept other supernatural god claims that are not part of their theistic beliefs.

Anyone who is honest and wants to understand the world . Considering atheism is not a belief i can't challenge it as such.  If you mean do i consider arguments from theists for theism yup that's why i read theistic literature .

Oh yes, atheism is a belief.  It's a preference and opinion.  Show me how the conscious comes from the unconscious.  You can't.  And since you can't, it's a matter of preference to believe that it did.  Atheists are almost certainly fervently hoping some rationale will come to light one day that will prove their preference, which is antipodal to searching for evidence to disprove their hypothesis.

Atheism is nothing more than NOT being convinced of theistic claims. How is that a belief?

Even if we can't show you how conscious comes from the unconscious, that would not give credence to god claims. The most honest answer at that point becomes, "we don't know how conscious arose". It does not become, "therefore god did it".

My hypothesis is that theists have not met their burden of proof. I have no justification to believe a god exists. That position for me, is a provisional one. If I was presented with demonstrable evidence and reasoned argument to support the claim that a god exists, I would no longer ba an atheist.

Theism - belief god(s) exist in absence of proof that god(s) exist.
Agnosticism - no belief, not sure what to believe.
Atheism - belief no gods exist in absence of proof that no gods exist.

Prove the last one.

Theism is the belief in a god or gods
Agnosticism is the position that the existence of god(s) is currently unknown, and possible unlnowable
Atheism is the lack of belief in god(s)

No proof is necessary for the last one. Agnosticism and atheism are NOT mutually exclusive positions. Most atheists are also agnostic.  

You have no understanding how life could come from non-life, yet you believe it's possible with no demonstrable proof or rationale.  (we've had that convo before).  If you don't understand (because you aren't a physicist), then why do you believe what you do?  Because you reject the sky god hypothesis?  So why is that the only alternative?

All that is necessary to disbelieve a god is responsible for life (or the existence of the universe), is to NOT be presented with demonstrable evidence to support the claim that a god is responsible.

The position that life arose from natural processes, and the position that a god is responsible for life, are not on equal footing. We know that nature exists. We don't know that gods exist. You are the one that is adding an unnecessary entity to the equation.

At best you could say "I have no seen evidence of a god nor any rationale that sways me to suspect there is a god, but I cannot say for sure there is no god."  To go beyond that is a religion.

Congratulations for defining agnostic atheism (somewhat) correctly.

Not being convinced by theist claims that a god or gods exist, is atheism.

---

Yawn.  Heard that a million times.

Then why don't you understand it?

Then define agnosticism.  Can't have two words meaning the same thing.

They don't mean the same thing.

Agnosticism - the position that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and/or unknowable

Atheism - disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings

Notice the definition for agnostic does not mention belief or disbelief, only knowledge. Also notice that the definition for atheism only mentions disbelief, not knowledge.

Knowledge and belief are not the same thing.

I do not claim to know, with absolute certainty, that gods do not exist. This defines me as agnostic.
I also happen not to believe that any gods exist. This defines me as an atheist.

Thus I am an agnostic atheist.

Byt the way, you can have 2 words mean the same thing. They are called "synonyms". There are entire books and websites dedicated to them. They are called "thesaurus". But in this case, they don't mean the same thing.