The world in general has no purposes.

Of course you have to be kidding me right?

But once again, existential questions can rear their ugly heads hence: If one says that they don't know something, what are they really saying/what's behind that thought process?

I suppose one could say that one is Stoic or indifferent to the question. Or maybe even some element of the so-called sense of wonderment is there. I think that's of higher consciousness...kind of like Kant's form of a priori logic, or in other words innate or intrinsic human intuition. — 3017amen

I think you are overcomplicating it. It just means I do not know if that statement is true. Again though, it depends on what you mean by “god”.
How do you define that term?

As to your statement, it depends on what you mean by “god”. Generally my answer would be “I do not know”, but that might change depending on how you define “god”. — DingoJones

Yeah, it could change with a different definition, but unless someone explains that they're using some goofy definition, I assume they're using standard senses. So if someone asks me, "True or false: there are Fender Stratocasters made in 1846" I'm going to say false. It might turn out that they're using "Fender Stratocaster" to refer to horseshoes, but I'm going to assume they're using the term normally until they tell me they're using it to refer to horseshoes.

Don't be shy 180. Argue that God does not exist!!!!

Great. How do you know that for sure? — 3017amen

I'll go part by part.

The first part? Because the notion of nonphysical existents is incoherent.

Great. Then I would recommend you become an Agnostic.

I was just getting ahead of the inevitable movement of goal posts

Of course you have to be kidding me right? — 3017amen

No, not at all. Teleology is goofy nonsense, precipitated by projecting the way we think about things onto the world at large. That's a common problem--projecting mental stuff into the world, although it was more common historically than it is now, but it's still a problem with many things.

Agnostics are atheists, the two terms are not mutually exclusive. (A common misconception)

Can you see the quantum universe?

Okay good for you. Just don't say: God does not exist. Then you become a positive Atheist and will have to defend your position.

Can you see the quantum universe? — 3017amen

There are existent things that we can't directly sense. I'm not saying anything about that when I say that the idea of nonphysical existents is incoherent. That's not anything about whether we directly sense something.

Depends on whats meant by “god”.
Care to define that term?

For me the biggest single argument is the cumulative nature of knowledge. Knowledge about quantum fields would be meaningless to a mesolithic hunter. Is the argument that God is unknowable in practice, or in theory? If you argue that God is theoretically unknowable, then you would have to concede the possibility that (S)he exists. If you argue that God is unknowable based on the current state of our knowledge now, then the same thing.

Atheists must assert that they currently possess adequate knowledge to be able to comprehend everything that is possibly knowable right now, before declaring that God does not exist. Which is of course absurd!

A learned, smart, philosophical person will never attempt either. — god must be atheist

That's what I am saying. The claims can't be preached or taught as if the claims are true; however, this dishonestly is widespread.

1. God does not exist.

(True or false just asking) — 3017amen

True.

Atheists must assert that they currently possess adequate knowledge to be able to comprehend everything that is possibly knowable right now, before declaring that God does not exist. Which is of course absurd! — Pantagruel

I don't see how that follows.

Usually, "existence" denotes physical existence. To make the argument that God, or gods, do not exist as physical entities, I merely need to point out that they have no predictive value, and as such are not part of any theory about the physical world. Since the proper epistemic procedure for establishing what exists physically is the scientific method, that is all that is required to answer the question.

Of course, you could be using "existence" to refer to some other reality. But in that case, I argue that the proper epistemic procedure is a null hypothesis. Since non-physical reality can only be known a-priori, anything that can be known about it is deducible from a-priori knowledge. Therefore, all I need to point out is that there is no valid deduction of God, or gods, from a-priori principles. Since there is thus no good reason to assume God exist, the reasonable thing to conclude is that God doesn't exist.

Atheists must assert that they currently possess adequate knowledge to be able to comprehend everything that is possibly knowable right now, before declaring that God does not exist. Which is of course absurd! — Pantagruel

Nah, all you have to do is admit that folks (on theistic side) are positing incoherent, insane-sounding nonsense.

Also, for them to be making a positive claim about it, we can't be saying that it's unknowable.

But there's no reason to reserve judgment about it when it's incoherent nonsense.

Okay good for you. Just don't say: God does not exist. — 3017amen

I don't say that. I say something along these lines:

The word "God" does not represent any physical being or object in the universe.

There are many variations of that sentence which express the same thought.

Great response. Why do we hope, is there survival value to Faith, Hope and Love? — 3017amen

We wish and hope because we want things, such as to ever continue on in an eternal life.

If someone were to say, "Oranges grow to full size inside pure energy crystals made out of toothpicks, where the crystals are 1,000 times smaller than the oranges that grow to full size inside, then massless, invisible pink aliens from Grobuflax use mind control to teleport the oranges from inside the crystals to your local grocery store, but only after they eat them first," you wouldn't need to withhold judgment about it, you wouldn't need to say, "Well, I can't say that's not how it works--I need to consider it as a possibility," etc.

Religious claims are at least as ridiculous as what I made up above--they're equally insane-sounding nonsense. It's just that they're so entrenched in our culture historically that people give them more consideration.

Care to define that term?



Remember, I'm a Christian Existentialist : If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe.

I'm guessing that you must have a conception of God to assert its non-existence though.

Great response. Why do we hope, is there survival value to Faith, Hope and Love? — 3017amen

He just won't stop the misconception that traits only arise and persist if there's a survival value to them.

You still haven't supported your view of why humans do/don't have purpose. Until you do that, your Atheism has major holes LOL

Oh, explain Faith Hope and Love while you are at it LOL!

The whole debate hinges not on the actual existence of God, only the possible existence of God.

You still haven't supported your view of why humans do/don't have purpose. — 3017amen

Purposes are ways that we think about things. It's thinking about something in a goal-directed way, where we have motivations for action related to goals we set.

It's a category error to project that mental phenomenon onto the world at large, as if things other than brains-functioning-as-minds think about things in a purpose-oriented way, too.

But how can you be sure? What kind of logic tells you that?

The whole debate hinges not on the actual existence of God, only the possible existence of God. — Pantagruel

Same thing with the whole debate about the oranges growing inside of toothpick crystals etc.?

"True"

Okay you said true to the proposition that: God does not exist.

Great. How can you prove it?

Same thing with the whole debate about the oranges growing inside of toothpick crystals etc.? — Terrapin Station

Of course not. I established my criteria of epistemic adequacy and cumulative knowledge already. You're statement is just...flippant.