Everyone is Agnostic

[Redbeard The Pink]

We can't 100% prove those things don't exist, but the burden of proof doesn't fall on us. It falls on the theist making the claim. You can't prove 100% there isn't a pink fluffy monster hiding out on Mars somewhere, but if you made the claim you'd be laughed into nonexistence, and for good reason.

And give Nobody some credit. He actually knows a lot about economics and globalization.

Well, impossible/contradictory objects cannot exist, so if you can prove that a thing definitively contradicts itself, you can establish with the greatest possible certainty that said thing does not exist. Square circles can't exist, for example, because a square has to have exactly four corners, and a circle has to have exactly zero.


A unicorn, by comparison, is a horse with a horn on its head. It's a thing we've never seen, but we've seen horses, and we've seen animals with horns on their heads, and nothing about either of those things necessarily excludes or contradicts the other, so even though we've never seen a unicorn, we can't reasonably conclude that it's an impossible object.


So, in any case, the question that has to be asked is this: is god a square circle, or is he a unicorn?


Jehovah, for instance, is definitely a square circle because his purported qualities (omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence, etc.) are mutually exclusive for various reasons. Jehovah is an impossible object.


The rest of man's gods fail on similar criteria. Some are both all-knowing and all-powerful, some are intangible yet able to affect reality, some are defined as citizens of a locale that turns out to be devoid of such beings...the list goes on.


Once you fight your way out to "higher power," you have to first prove to me that The Winderhirdenboogen does not exist before I will address whether god exists.

[T.J.]

We can't 100% prove those things don't exist, but the burden of proof doesn't fall on us. It falls on the theist making the claim. You can't prove 100% there isn't a pink fluffy monster hiding out on Mars somewhere, but if you made the claim you'd be laughed into nonexistence, and for good reason.

And give Nobody some credit. He actually knows a lot about economics and globalization.

Well, impossible/contradictory objects cannot exist, so if you can prove that a thing definitively contradicts itself, you can establish with the greatest possible certainty that said thing does not exist. Square circles can't exist, for example, because a square has to have exactly four corners, and a circle has to have exactly zero.


A unicorn, by comparison, is a horse with a horn on its head. It's a thing we've never seen, but we've seen horses, and we've seen animals with horns on their heads, and nothing about either of those things necessarily excludes or contradicts the other, so even though we've never seen a unicorn, we can't reasonably conclude that it's an impossible object.


So, in any case, the question that has to be asked is this: is god a square circle, or is he a unicorn?


Jehovah, for instance, is definitely a square circle because his purported qualities (omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence, etc.) are mutually exclusive for various reasons. Jehovah is an impossible object.


The rest of man's gods fail on similar criteria. Some are both all-knowing and all-powerful, some are intangible yet able to affect reality, some are defined as citizens of a locale that turns out to be devoid of such beings...the list goes on.


Once you fight your way out to "higher power," you have to first prove to me that The Winderhirdenboogen does not exist before I will address whether god exists.

I like this post, but I'm a tad bit confused.

After doing some digging I know omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence are self-contradictory on their own (so you don't really have to even combine them to prove your point), but how are they mutually exclusive?

[Redbeard The Pink]

Perfect knowledge precludes perfect power because knowing what you will do next is technically a limitation on your power. You can't decide on the fly to change anything because that would mean your previous knowledge was wrong, which would make it imperfect. With perfect knowledge, it is literally impossible to take a spontaneous, unplanned action, and if you can't do something, that isn't perfect power.

You especially can't keep all 3 omni's and wind up with a Universe/planet like ours. If god allows suffering because he wants people to suffer, he is not all good. If he allows it because he cannot stop it, then he is not all-powerful. If he creates everything with advance knowledge of all the evil that would be caused, he assumes responsibility for all the evil in the Universe.

That last one is more about the alleged nature of their god than its actual existence, but I do enjoy watching them squirm while trying to explain why god isn't evil.

[brewer]

I know a fantasy when I hear one. Sorry, 100%.

[robvalue]

The problem is that "God" is a word so vague as to be useless, and so loaded as to be impossible to discuss properly.

My idea of a "God" would be something akin to a computer programmer, something I've brought up many times. Are we a computer program come to life? Maybe. Maybe not. No idea.

[The Grand Nudger]

I know that there aren't any gods flitting around in the same way and with the same certainty that I know the sun will rise in the morning.  So, no, I'm not an agnostic.

[Whateverist]

I can still allow that the human brain can be wired to produce 'God' as a perceived 'other'. In that sense I feel 99% sure that 'God' does exist - for some. However life can be every bit as meaningful or disappointing, moral or apathetic for atheists as it can for believers. 'God' is not required and external gods do not exist.

I am agnostic about whether 'God' exists for others since I'm not privy to their subjective life. I choose to believe they are sincere in their stated beliefs. But I have some uncertainty whether every professed believer is sincere. It isn't always easy to tell.