Originally posted by inimalist
[B]interesting... not to just make this all about semantics, but I would say there is no such thing as a "can't know" atheist. Inherent in the way I understand the concept is the idea that some statement about the existance of God can be made, which is the antithesis of "can't know" (again, just in how I use the terms).Like, there are "would-change-their-mind-in-light-of-better-evidence" atheists....
I was talking about 'cant know' agnostics, I just wrote it wrong in the first sentence. My point remains that being transcendental and inexplicable are traits associated with very traditional definitions of god (historically, perhaps more so among theologists and currently among educated theists) and that this is the god that 'can't know' agnostics claim that can't be known. Islam for instance doesn't anthropomorphize god and views it as completelly transcendental, beyond logic itself. Hinduism likewise paints a a Brahma and an 'illusory' (for lack of a better term on my part) cosmos emanating from it that make it pretty hard to claim to know of its existence with empiricism.
yes, most educated theists today. Not the majority of the population, at least not in my nation or continent, and certainly not the one almost ubiquetous in human history (ie - antropomorphic being that interacts with the world).I'd argue that educated theists have, for the most part, reframed a debate such that they, at the very least, have accounted for some of the better criticisms against this traditional definition. The reason being, even if we say that the acts of God themself are beyond material observation, their impacts on the world are not. Even if there was the most subtle effect or impression left through any interaction between God and Earth, it is my suspiscion that we would have detected it in some way, or at the very least, would have indicitive mysteries (ie: wow, these studies show praying does work?).
Problem is that anything can be atributed to the will of god and that even if there's no evidence to support it and a strictly material mechanism is understood, there's no way to refute it either, because the existence of forces beyond physics are outside the scope of science's investigative capacities. I agree there is no reason to believe in their existence and that they might as well not exist if that's the case, but strictkly speaking, we can't claim to know one way or the other. We can speak nothing of it in terms of knowledge is what a 'cant know' agnostic would say.
Faith is by definition belief without reason and God will remain irrefutable as it isn't a scientific hypothesis at all. A cant know agnostic would point to this and say we "can't know", we can only speculate.
Because disbelief is my default, I'm confortable saying I do not believe in god and even affirming it - as an intelect or intent controlling or creating the cosmos, etc. let alone one that reflects human traits - doesn't exist. But I get the 'cant know' types point.
Otherwise, I'm certainly of the opinion that a god that doesn't interact with the universe might as well not exist.
He could be first cause and not interact with the universe afterwards - some forms of deism. If you think the universe is superdeterministic - randomness and chance occurrances do not exist - then first cause would have determined all of history even without any further interference from a deity.
Well, what "god" are we talking about. If the God you are asking me about has, inherent to it's definition, the quality of unknowability, than by definition, I can't know.
That's my point and I believe most non-loonatic, non-medieval theists today would invoke characteristics that make God unknowable in their description of it. They accept belief without any reason to do so, because it makes sense to them that there was a divine first cause, or that there is something architecting and oversighting the cosmos, perhaps permeating it too, etc.
I don't think that is what God is, though.Or, maybe again I'd have to specify that "A God that goes to such great lengths to test their creation that they would not only hide their existance, but make their existance seem impossibly unlikely upon further investigation, might as well not exist", or, at the very least, that isn't the "type" of God I feel I'm addressing when we talk about atheism. Not that I think it is any more likely to exist, but more in the sense that I would approach such a being as an anti-theist. That being is unworthy of human worship.
I can understand that. The thing is that most theists would accept this irrational belief and find it laudable. The god that plays hide and seek is simply testing or requireing faith, belief in him with no proof or indication is a good thing to them. Holy books are full of such examples.
I think you are playing semantics too much here. A "conclusion drawn from traits atributed to God", or specifically just the "traits attributed to God" part is the Ontology.
Not really, I don't think you got my point. I'm saying that can't know agnostics aren't the ones atributing these traits to God, they are comenting on the definition of god spoused by most educated, contemporary theists. Most can't know agnostics (all the ones I know) would outright reject the idea of a superman living in a cloud or incarnate deities people shattering the laws of physics and performing miracles.