Interesting post, however, I'd like to present an alternative perspective that might add to the complexity of this discussion.

Consider the following flipped argument:

1. If there is no empirical evidence for something, then belief in that something is based on faith and personal beliefs, not fact.
2. There is currently no empirical evidence for the non-existence of a deity.
3. Therefore, the belief in the non-existence of a deity is based on faith and personal beliefs, not fact. (1,2 MP)

This alternative argument suggests that both theism and atheism involve a degree of faith and personal beliefs, as neither position can be definitively proven or disproven with empirical evidence alone. The debate between theism and atheism often extends beyond empirical evidence and encompasses philosophical, logical, and experiential grounds.

Pascal's Wager automatically comes to my mind. It can be summarized as follows:
1. If you believe in God and God exists, you gain infinite happiness.
2. If you believe in God and God does not exist, you lose little or nothing.
3. If you do not believe in God and God exists, you face infinite loss.
4. If you do not believe in God and God does not exist, you gain little or nothing.

However, I know this can potentially have problems. While neither theists nor atheists can provide conclusive empirical evidence for their positions, I find the theistic arguments, such as the Cosmological Argument and the Teleological Argument, to be more convincing and coherent than their atheistic counterparts. In addition to these philosophical arguments, I think it's important to consider the limitations of human knowledge. There are many aspects of reality, such as higher dimensions or the nature of consciousness, that we are still struggling to understand. If a deity exists, it is likely to be a transcendent, complex, and powerful being that could potentially exist beyond the limits of human comprehension. Expecting to fully understand or grasp the nature of such a being using our current level of knowledge might be an unrealistic expectation.

. There is currently no empirical evidence for the non-existence of a deity. — gevgala

The burden of proof on is on anyone who makes an extraordinary positive claim. There's no empirical evidence for the non-existence of Bigfoot or fairies either.

While neither theists nor atheists can provide conclusive empirical evidence for their positions, — gevgala

Atheists like myself don't make claims about the non-existence of god. Our claim is that we have no good reason to accept the proposition - the arguments and evidence being unconvincing.

Atheists like myself don't make claims about the non-existence of god. Our claim is that we have no good reason to accept the proposition - the arguments and evidence being unconvincing. — Tom Storm

:100:

Thank you all for your thoughtful replies!



EnPassant, regarding the definitions you set forth; I'm not sure they're ones I could accept. It seems to conflate existence and being as properties and assumes that they are distinct entities.

From a naturalistic perspective, it seems that one could argue that existence is not a property, but a precondition for properties. In other words, for an object or concept to possess properties, it must first exist. Therefore, when we talk about X having the property of existence, it's not a property that X possesses, but rather, it describes the state of X.

Moreover, the distinction between being and existence seems to be based on a metaphysical assumption that is not universally accepted. Instead of assuming that being is developed existence, we could view them as synonymous, describing the same state of existence.

1. X exists. This makes existence as a property of X superfluous whence X is existence.

2. X does not exist. It is incoherent to say as non existent X has properties. Whence existence has properties but is not a property of anything. — EnPassant

In response to the two above scenarios:

1. If X exists, then it's not that existence is a property of X; rather, X is in a state of existence, which allows it to have properties. This doesn't seem to imply that X is equivalent to existence itself.

2. If X does not exist, it indeed cannot have properties. However, this doesn't imply that existence has properties, but rather, that the discussion of properties for non-existent entities is irrelevant, which I would agree.

To me, these counterexamples and explanations seem to provide a robust alternative here.

There is currently no empirical evidence for the non-existence of a deity. — gevgala

How many human lifetimes would it to take to examine the evidence for the non-existence of all the things we have conceived of that don't exist?

If a deity exists, it is likely to be a transcendent, complex, and powerful being that could potentially exist beyond the limits of human comprehension. — gevgala

Then how is such an entity relevant to us, and why should we call it God?
How do you relate to something you can't comprehend?
Does it want us to eat meat or not? Does it want us to masturbate or not? Does it breathe souls into babies at conception or birth? Which day of the week does it want us to pray? Which is its favourite football team? What exactly are we supposed to believe about this deity?
Just that it exists?
Okay, maybe it exists. So what?

Thank you! I appreciate the alternative perspective and the flipped argument you presented. However, I'd like to address a few aspects of your argument and offer some clarifications.

This is largely echoing what Tom said, but I think it's important to note that the burden of proof typically lies with the one making a positive claim, in this case, the theist. It does seem true that neither theism nor atheism (as we know them) has sufficient evidence to warrant an end to the discussion. However, atheism is often seen as a rejection of the positive claim (i.e., the existence of a deity) due to insufficient evidence rather than making a claim in itself. In this sense, atheism does not necessarily rely on faith and personal beliefs, but rather a healthy dose of skepticism and a demand for evidence.

Regarding Pascal's Wager, it is indeed an interesting thought experiment, but I don't think it's without its flaws. In this case, it assumes a binary choice between belief and disbelief in a specific deity. This seems to neglect the multitude of religions and dieties that've surfaced through history. It seems that choosing to believe in one deity could lead to "infinite loss" if the true deity turns out to be another, for example.

As for the Cosmological and Teleological arguments, they do offer interesting perspectives on the origin of the universe and the apparent order within it. However, these arguments are not without their criticisms, either. For instance, the Cosmological Argument relies on the assumption that everything must have a cause, which we don't necessarily know to be true at the quantum level. It sounds crazy, but much of what was previously unknown to science sounded crazy as well.

Take, for example, ancient cultures and religious texts that said things to the effect:
"How can water fall from above? Ah, it must be an ocean above us held back by a dome. That's how we get rain."

While it's true that there are many aspects of reality that we are yet to fully understand, invoking a deity to explain these unknowns seems wrong (the "God of the gaps" fallacy). Historically, gaps in human knowledge have often been filled with supernatural explanations, only to be replaced by natural explanations as our understanding advances. I will accept that the existence of a deity might be possible. But relying on it as an explanation for the unknown might hinder our pursuit of knowledge and understanding.

Even if we assume everything must have a cause through our current understanding of nature (and ignore emerging quantum theories), it still seems like quite the stretch to posit a particular deity or religion. The Cosmological argument seems to advocate that the diety is exempt from laws of causation because it's necessary, but I don't see how the same couldn't be said about the cosmos itself. Additionally, the Teleological Argument has been challenged by the theory of evolution, which provides a natural explanation for the complexity and order we observe in living organisms.

These replies are grossly short considering the expanse of the topics, but hopefully it helps to continue the conversation :)

It seems like your view explained here might fall under the "God of the gaps" fallacy. If you don't mind sharing, I'm curious how someone could hold that stance.

... and because "nothing" causes it to be. — 180 Proof

If nothingness has a power to cause anything, it is not nothingness. Nothingness is not even there. 'It' is not even an it; 'it' is entirely absent.

That is why I wrote nothing and not "nothingness".

I agree. 'Nothing' is no (created) - thing, which can be a positive existence.

'Nothing' is no (created) - thing, which can be a positive existence. — EnPassant

So, when we say, "Nothing happened," that positive existence was taking place. Could we have perceived it?

It seems like your view explained here might fall under the "God of the gaps" fallacy. If you don't mind sharing, I'm curious how someone could hold that stance. — Thund3r

Long story - short version. Many philosophers, including Kant and Lao Tzu, have recognized that the reality we live in is a function, not only of some so-called "objective reality," but also of aspects that are uniquely human, e.g. Kant wrote that concepts of time and space are not inherent in reality, but are an overlay created by the human mind. I think religions recognize that fundamental humanity of reality in a way that rationality and science don't and can't.

To be clear, this is a metaphysical position, not a factual one, but I think it is more useful, less misleading, than rationalists standard metaphysical views.

We are properties of it and perceive other properties/creations.

We are properties of it and perceive other properties/creations. — EnPassant

It? What?

Existence. All created things are properties of existence.

I Yam That I Yam