I can feel your anger

[Whateverist]

I consider existence (both the universe and sentience) to be something which requires an explanation.

This is interesting in a seemingly gotcha way (which I expect you will clear up for me). Some ask for evidence, others for an explanation. If those who expect evidence implicitly carry a believe that lacking evidence is tantamount to lacking existence, what beliefs must one be laboring under to require an explanation?

What evidence would you require to prove a god exsits? I've asked this several times now, and no one addresses the question.

I really have no idea what the answer is to your question. Knowing so little about what a god might be, I have no way of knowing what indicators would signal ones existence. But then, what at a minimum would count as an adequate explanation of the universe and sentience?

Of course not knowing what evidence would rule out the existence of gods doesn't rule out the possible existence of something unknown which we've been calling gods. But does it matter?

I may be way off base here but do you hope that preserving space for something like gods is a way of holding out hope for an explanation of existence? I have a hard time believing you would find that any more satisfying as an explanation than I would. This is what most atheists would refer to as the "goddidit" explanation.

To my way of thinking, sorting the origins of things into the doings of various supernatural beings does not count as providing an explanation. Analyzing how any 'supernatural' being does what it does would count as an explanation. Of course, once we know how its done, it is no longer super natural.

Now at this point I expect you to skewer me for assuming that we have the capacity to understand everything. On what basis do I dare assume such a thing? Actually, I don't assume that. But I do think that we can ever only hope to explain that which we do have the capacity to understand. No understanding, no explanation .. and I think you're the one who must have an explanation, yes?

Well we don't differ on the question of whether humanity has or will ever have the capacity to assess the problem. There may very well not be evidence available to settle every question.

I think where we may differ is in our concept of natural explanation. I have no room for a category of things which by their nature must remain supernatural, gods for example. Even if I do lack the qualities to access every aspect of it, I still believe there is a way that things are, a natural world. I believe the very concept of "explaining" really means showing where a thing fits in the natural world. If any gods exist, I believe, it will be shown they must have a place in the natural world .. even if our concept of the natural world is expanded in the process.

Interesting. I focus more on humanities capabilities and choose not to assume that we can assess all that is (in an absolute sense). It makes sense to attempt to understand the universe/world/existenec as best we can, but why do you think we are in a position to assess what exists , whether it's in material, supernatural etc sense? This is the irony of the atheist position, it's commonly asserted that the burden of proof is on the believer, yet most atheists believe that all that exists is in the natural world. I realise this is only because that which can be proven to exists, does exist. This is circular. This is not the same as denying the way we see the natural world. Some will see this a a god of the gaps, maybe it is, maybe it isn't.

Yes I do indulge a naive belief in something I'd like to call the natural world which I'm defining as what exists. I also assume that perceptually and cognitively we do apprehend this natural world, though I wouldn't say in any exhaustive way. I wouldn't assume that if we are not equipped to detect it, that it doesn't exist. As a species we may be but one of the blind men grasping onto just one part of the elephant. Yet I think we do know something about the part we grasp.

Now this analogy actually serves you well because you suspect (believe?) that existence is divided into a portion we have access to (my natural world) and another which we don't (the supernatural?). You can now say that we will never understand the elephant so long as we can only know its tail. But even if the unknowable was such a meaningful category, what difference could suspecting it make in divining the shape of the entire elephant? I guess what I'm asking is, could your correct belief in this matter possibly enable you to transcend our natural world? And if not, what does it matter?