Secular Nativity

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No it isn't. It is that I currently have no belief in God so cannot engage with God.

You seem to be saying then that an agnostic atheist must acknowledge the possibility of God and hence the possibility of encounter but that it is impossible for them to engage with God.

I hate to say it but that makes your belief indistinguishable to a priori God evasion

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There's always the possibility that there is a god, but the evidence of its existence is zero. There may be a god that is hidden from us, but that's functionally equivalent to no god as far as I am concerned, so while I acknowledge the possibility of God, I come to the tentative conclusion that I may as well not believe in it and get on with my life.

But what is it then that guarantees that God remains Hidden?

[Gordon]

But what is it then that guarantees that God remains Hidden?

Not existing in the first place would have that effect.

[Gordon]

You seem to be saying then that an agnostic atheist must acknowledge the possibility of God and hence the possibility of encounter but that it is impossible for them to engage with God.

Nope - when faced with an incoherent claim the issue of 'possibility' is redundant.

I hate to say it but that makes your belief indistinguishable to a priori God evasion

So we're back to your 'God-dodging' nonsense - 'evasion' is not required where there is nothing to evade.

[Stranger]

My point is that an agnostic atheist does not have any justification to leave the matter there.

Of course they do. I have never been given any reason to take the idea seriously, so I don't. I have to remain intellectually agnostic simply because there are many versions of God that cannot be proved wrong.

Many people who state they are agnostic atheists act as though they are gnostic atheists IMV. They are practically convinced that there is no God, certainly enough to forgo an adequate intellectual investigation.

There doesn't appear to be anything to investigate. Theists, in my experience, only have blind faith. wishful thinking, and terrible 'arguments'.

Evidence of that is a pretty shallow knowledge of the philosophy behind theism...

Every time any theist has claimed to use philosophy, it turned out to be total bollocks, like the hour of my life I'll never get back listening to Edward Feser.

Regardless, if you have to delve into philosophy to find a reason to believe in a God then said God clearly isn't interested in delivering a message to humanity. It's not impossible that some sort of God might exist, but one that is at all interested in clearly communicating its existence and message to humans, goes against all the evidence. If it can't be bothered, then why should I?

[Maeght]

You seem to be saying then that an agnostic atheist must acknowledge the possibility of God and hence the possibility of encounter but that it is impossible for them to engage with God.

I hate to say it but that makes your belief indistinguishable to a priori God evasion

Of course it doesn't. I acknowledge the possibility of God existing, in that I could be wrong, but have no belief in God so can't engage with something I don't believe in. Seems straightforward to me.

[Maeght]

But if you are agnostic you never have any guarantee that you aren’t going to encounter God.
Your belief here seems to be that you can’t encounter God.

Nope.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Of course they do. I have never been given any reason to take the idea seriously, so I don't. I have to remain intellectually agnostic simply because there are many versions of God that cannot be proved wrong.

There doesn't appear to be anything to investigate. Theists, in my experience, only have blind faith. wishful thinking, and terrible 'arguments'.

Every time any theist has claimed to use philosophy, it turned out to be total bollocks, like the hour of my life I'll never get back listening to Edward Feser.

Regardless, if you have to delve into philosophy to find a reason to believe in a God then said God clearly isn't interested in delivering a message to humanity. It's not impossible that some sort of God might exist, but one that is at all interested in clearly communicating its existence and message to humans, goes against all the evidence. If it can't be bothered, then why should I?

intellectual endeavour doesn’t ask to be given reasons. It explores them. It seeks out sufficient reasons. Not seeks to disprove the principle.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not existing in the first place would have that effect.

That depends on whether the thesis that God is hidden is correct.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nope.

So you can encounter God but your belief forbids a response?

[Stranger]

intellectual endeavour doesn’t ask to be given reasons. It explores them. It seeks out sufficient reasons. Not seeks to disprove the principle.

I see you totally ignored what I said. There is nothing (other than popularity, in some cases) that distinguishes the endless different, and contradictory, versions of 'God' that are believed in, from any other baseless superstition.

How much intellectual endeavour have you indulged in about vampires, ghosts, alien abductions, the Lock Ness monster, or the teapot orbiting Saturn?

How about a statistical investigation into the subsequence luck of people who walk under ladders, or on the cracks in the pavement?

[Stranger]

intellectual endeavour doesn’t ask to be given reasons. It explores them. It seeks out sufficient reasons. Not seeks to disprove the principle.

I forgot to add that if a God with an important message for humanity exists, but hides its message amongst all the false religions and superstition, then that it further evidence that it is unjust.
 

[Gordon]

That depends on whether the thesis that God is hidden is correct.

How could you ever tell though?

A claimed 'something' being hidden from view or that claimed 'something' not existing the the first place would result 'nothing to see here' in either case.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I see you totally ignored what I said. There is nothing (other than popularity, in some cases) that distinguishes the endless different, and contradictory, versions of 'God' that are believed in, from any other baseless superstition.

Hyberbole. There cannot be endless versions of God. You have totally ignored the God we are “looking for”. The ultimate and the fundamental. Any God which is part of  a pantheon of gods can be ruled out since they are neither ultimate or fundamental. They are a red herring.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

How could you ever tell though?

A claimed 'something' being hidden from view or that claimed 'something' not existing the the first place would result 'nothing to see here' in either case.

Are we to take the word$ “view” and “see” as literal? That if there were a God we would detect it empirically?

[Gordon]

Are we to take the word$ “view” and “see” as literal? That if there were a God we would detect it empirically?

No idea, since I've no idea what this 'God' is: not my claim. If you can't detect it empirically then perhaps you'd care to outline a few 'God-apt' non-empirical detection methods.

[jeremyp]

But what is it then that guarantees that God remains Hidden?

As Gordon says, it could be non existence, but don't fret. As soon as God reveals itself to us, I'll become a believer. Before then, I will continue with my working assumption of nonexistence.

[Nearly Sane]

Hyberbole. There cannot be endless versions of God. You have totally ignored the God we are “looking for”. The ultimate and the fundamental. Any God which is part of  a pantheon of gods can be ruled out since they are neither ultimate or fundamental. They are a red herring.

Begging the question, yet again.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No idea, since I've no idea what this 'God' is: not my claim. If you can't detect it empirically then perhaps you'd care to outline a few 'God-apt' non-empirical detection methods.

What a strange response. A yes or no answer would have sufficed. I don’t believe you don’t know whether your ruling criterion for existence is empirical evidence. Your response seems a little bit wolfhound and a little bit wahayy.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Begging the question, yet again.

Anyone?

[Gordon]

What a strange response. A yes or no answer would have sufficed. I don’t believe you don’t know whether your ruling criterion for existence is empirical evidence. Your response seems a little bit wolfhound and a little bit wahayy.

Right - so you don't understand the point I was making and you have instead decided to evade with some nonsense.

I have no criteria for 'God' since it seems to me to be a meaningless term, and it isn't my claim anyway: but perhaps you could give us some hints on how to detect it (either empirically or non-empirically).

[Nearly Sane]

Anyone?

You are assuming your conclusion.

[Stranger]

There cannot be endless versions of God.

There are endless versions of God that people believe in. I see no reason to think any of them actually exist, but there are unquestionably many versions of God that different people will tell you do exist.

You have totally ignored the God we are “looking for”. The ultimate and the fundamental.

Who's this "we"? I see no more point in looking for a God, than looking for fairies at the bottom of the garden.

Any God which is part of  a pantheon of gods can be ruled out since they are neither ultimate or fundamental.

That doesn't mean they can't exist. By your own 'logic' you should be investigating the possibility.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

As Gordon says, it could be non existence, but don't fret. As soon as God reveals itself to us, I'll become a believer. Before then, I will continue with my working assumption of nonexistence.

Well we’ve already had someone on who has suggested that God could exist and be encountered but there atheistic beliefs would prevent engaging with God. I’m not sure that is uncommon. You seem to be saying that those people who have encountered God are wrong. Have I got that right?Or are you saying it’s possible to have encountered God but you don’t believe them?

Secondly can you give your rationale for “your working assumption”.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There are endless versions of God that people believe in.

And Again

I see no reason to think any of them actually exist,

If there are endless versions You cannot have seen them all.

Once again, My interest is in the Ultimate and fundemental, so intellectually I rule out that which is not fundamental and ultimate from being fundamental and ultimate.