I can feel your anger

[Selliedjoup]

No it's something I believe. Based on existing evidence it's the most logical assumption, as opposed to believing science will disprove a god, or that god is proven.

Not by any form of logic with which I'm familiar.

So it's perfectly logical to disbelieve a god, but not a natural cause despite the lack of evidence for both?

That it is possible that gods exist is not in dispute between us. I accept that it is possible that our 'net' of perceptual and cognitive abilities may not be fine enough to detect everything that exists.

I also do not dispute that such imperceptible gods, if they exist, would of course be natural. That's just a function of what we mean by the word natural.

But I don't see how any logic will lead from these observations to requiring strong agnosticism.

I'm a strong agnostic based on what is known now, the history of humanity's perception of their current knoweldge and my lifespan.
I think the chances are very low that anything of relevance will be proven in my lifetime, so I'm restricted by defining my strong agnosticism within the range of my life. Outside of this, (e.g 1000 years) i may be a weak agnostic, theist or atheist, who knows, but it holds no relevance to my position now or to my position.

I would assume weak atheism is due to the dependence on science, rather than the belief that a god will be proved. I believe a god is a possibility and not an unlikely one as I have no means to determine this probability.

You assume incorrectly. My atheism is weak because while I concede the possibility of undetectable gods, I'm far from convinced that there must be a class of undetectable beings. Even if undetectable gods did exist, perhaps we are just as undetectable to them. What sort of beings do we suppose these gods to be?

Why/how would you be convinced that there is a class of undectable beings? I make no assumptions towards that which we can't perceive., apart from considering it to be a possibility I see no reason to consider that our knowledge is sufficient to be applied in any meaningful sense, it's all just relative to previous generations (progression).

If gods are to be understood as playing a critical role in creation, then I can't get past the question of what created them, and the creators of the creator's creators, and and so on. If you want to talk about logic, tell me how this fails.

I can't but the same can be applied to anything ('natural' or otherwise). Somehow there needs to be an initial point of origin. Simply positing the big bang as uncaused is illogical. Claiming matter popped into existence from literally nothing (i.e. no time, space or matter) is not acceptable. Quantum flucuations are insufficient as existence is a requirement for these to occur (unless there is proof to the contrary), therefore offering flucations as proof of existence 'beginning', makes no sense. If these are the catalyst that caused time to begin, it would make no sense that these 'spontaneously' created outside of time, to then contruibiute towards creating time (existence).

Perhaps you can logically demonstrate otherwise?

It depends, I don't use the term as a response to theists. Theists would probably view me as an atheist, although I view myself as an agnostic. Based on saying "I don't know" but the philosophy I apply is very different to those who view themselves as atheists.

I'm only asking whether you include the consideration of gods in your life. If you don't, then I say you are by definition an atheist too. As an exercise in abstract reasoning, I find I can't even get started thinking about gods because they are so poorly defined. What is their most important defining characteristic? Creation? Keeper of the after-life? Judge over what is moral? Special omni-powers?

I can't imagine you waste any time wondering if the god of the bible taken in a literal way exists, do you? I have no problem caring about the kind of gods Joseph Campbell describes running around in my own psyche. I totally exist to serve those suckers (no blasphemy intended). Mostly I'm just apathetic about whether cosmological gods exist. Does it really matter?

I don't consider the god of the bible as a literal thing, I could be wrong, but it's not something I would believe in.

Some form of creator, may not matter to you whether it exists, however this isn't really relevant to the question. It would suggest to me that there was some kind of purpose to which would otherwise be purely random.

---

And why would we care what a person with half a brain thinks of us?

The superiority complex of the atheist.

---

I must admit I'm disappointed the only response I could elicit from you is pointing out a typo.

And still, you have no argument to refute the ideas proposed by the dude in the 'wheelcheer'.

I'm more interested in those here explaining his conjecture, rather than just chairing him on.