If u can say there is no God we at that point agree that we know what we r both talking about when we say God correct? An all powerful being that is it's own thing outside of everything we can comprehend and know. So now that we r both talking about same thing u say ur atheist so ur bring to me ur belief that there is no thing that I call God. What I'm saying is saying ur atheist brings me to think u know God as the concept we mean. So how can u claim to not believe in something outside everything in our universe yet claim u known what we mean. All I'm saying is them saying there atheist brings them into the same idea. Were saying we believe in all powerful being outside everything in universe. But how can u not believe In something that u agree is outside the known. At worst ur admitting it's possible by claiming it's impossible. Anything outside the known can never be labeled impossible for sure. And if u can think deep enough to atleast visualize outside the universe enough to say u dont believe its possible says it's at least possible
So first thing, atheism is the lack of belief, not the belief in non-belief. I cannot profess to you my belief in nothing, as I do not profess belief to begin with.
Secondly and unfortunately this argument can be turned against you quite easily I'm afraid.
The burden of proof ultimately rests on those making the claim for God's existence, as they are making the claim against what is observable or quantifiable by human means. It is not incumbent on me to prove that God does not exist, but on the believer to prove he does.
How can you claim to know God exists if he is outside the known? By virtue of it being outside the known, it can never truly be known, and is impossible to sustain otherwise as it would need to become known, nullifying God's position as being outside the known.
At this point you only have two options, which is the God of the Gaps argument, which is to say we relegate God to what we do not know, and God is ever-shrinking the more we end up knowing about the universe.
Or option 2, much more likely, that ultimately leads to agnosticism as neither side can ever TRULY know for sure that God exists. Ultimately this is really the most sensible position to take, as agnostics simply admit that since there is no proof one way or another for divinity, they will never truly know unless divinity manifests itself to them. Arguably we should all be agnostics as a matter of principle and consistency with our way of analysis and fact gathering as a species.
The fact is belief in God's existence is currently only achieved through belief, and not evidence.
Ultimately it doesn't truly matter, since it is true that humans benefit from belief in God, regardless of God's existence, so I subscribe to Jordan Peterson's stance whereby he says that he acts as if God exists, which does not require the existence of God, but the acknowledgement that God is the ultimately example of what humans should strive to emulate in their behavior in life. (barring some of the more nasty stuff in the Old Testament hehe).
U can observe God look at the way the universe is connected and has way it functions on all levels. If there is this connection there has to be something building it or atleast maintaining it. So if its maintains it it has to be doing it as a force outside what's being maintained. So what is that. And yes u do have to defend ur argument because words were made to share ideas about something we saw or felt. We wouldnt agree on the idea and make it a word unless we were visualizing the same concept that the word represents. So u cant be an atheist u cant even have an opinion because u say u have never seen God to prove he is real but u cant say u have seen all so if I watch a movie and u say the movie isnt real do I have to proves it's real or do u have to prove it's not. U say u have seen all movies and this one isn't real button yet I'm saying I've seen this is movie and I know it's real. Ur assuming u know all but yet I have to prove what I saw was real. All I have to do is prove there r things u dont know and ur concept falls apart. Any one thing that I can name that u dont know makes ur previous concept of assuming u have seen all as false from that point forward. U have to prove ur side I have to just disprove ur current understanding in a way that shows something outside ur current belief
The problem arises that you are making the argument for agnosticism, and not for God's existence.
Just as in a court of law, the burden of proof lies on the accuser and not on the defendant. The accuser makes the allegations and must sustain them with evidence.
It is humanity's experience that God does not exist, regardless of the amount of belief we apply, because belief is outside the methods we use to understand the universe and its mechanics, and none of those methods can even formulate a basic assumption for the existence of God.
In fact, the more we refine those methods, the more they do not require and exclude God. If you are to observe the progression of science you will see that early scientists' universal models did include God, to explain those things not covered by their models, but as science progressed, those models become more complex and expansive and God was gradually and finally completely excluded.
As such, for you to provide evidence of God, you are required to provide the models and methods by which you have concluded God's existence, and thus far, all that has truly been provided is belief, which is quite possibly the least convincing thing there is, as anything can be believed by its mere statement, without any sort of evidence.
For instance, I believe there is a race of purple spidermonkeys on some planet in the galaxy next door, I can't prove it, but I believe it to be so, and now I come to you and ask you to prove it's not so. Does that sound fair?
For me the "way the universe is connected and functions on all levels" is simply not enough. It may even be a valid observation, but it does not follow that it is necessarily attributed to God's work or proves its existence. In fact, none of our current models of universal mechanics require, assume or prove God in any way.
If u can say there is no God we at that point agree that we know what we r both talking about when we say God correct? An all powerful being that is it's own thing outside of everything we can comprehend and know. So now that we r both talking about same thing u say ur atheist so ur bring to me ur belief that there is no thing that I call God. What I'm saying is saying ur atheist brings me to think u know God as the concept we mean. So how can u claim to not believe in something outside everything in our universe yet claim u known what we mean. All I'm saying is them saying there atheist brings them into the same idea. Were saying we believe in all powerful being outside everything in universe. But how can u not believe In something that u agree is outside the known. At worst ur admitting it's possible by claiming it's impossible. Anything outside the known can never be labeled impossible for sure. And if u can think deep enough to atleast visualize outside the universe enough to say u dont believe its possible says it's at least possible
So first thing, atheism is the lack of belief, not the belief in non-belief. I cannot profess to you my belief in nothing, as I do not profess belief to begin with.
Secondly and unfortunately this argument can be turned against you quite easily I'm afraid.
The burden of proof ultimately rests on those making the claim for God's existence, as they are making the claim against what is observable or quantifiable by human means. It is not incumbent on me to prove that God does not exist, but on the believer to prove he does.
How can you claim to know God exists if he is outside the known? By virtue of it being outside the known, it can never truly be known, and is impossible to sustain otherwise as it would need to become known, nullifying God's position as being outside the known.
At this point you only have two options, which is the God of the Gaps argument, which is to say we relegate God to what we do not know, and God is ever-shrinking the more we end up knowing about the universe.
Or option 2, much more likely, that ultimately leads to agnosticism as neither side can ever TRULY know for sure that God exists. Ultimately this is really the most sensible position to take, as agnostics simply admit that since there is no proof one way or another for divinity, they will never truly know unless divinity manifests itself to them. Arguably we should all be agnostics as a matter of principle and consistency with our way of analysis and fact gathering as a species.
The fact is belief in God's existence is currently only achieved through belief, and not evidence.
Ultimately it doesn't truly matter, since it is true that humans benefit from belief in God, regardless of God's existence, so I subscribe to Jordan Peterson's stance whereby he says that he acts as if God exists, which does not require the existence of God, but the acknowledgement that God is the ultimately example of what humans should strive to emulate in their behavior in life. (barring some of the more nasty stuff in the Old Testament hehe).
U can observe God look at the way the universe is connected and has way it functions on all levels. If there is this connection there has to be something building it or atleast maintaining it. So if its maintains it it has to be doing it as a force outside what's being maintained. So what is that. And yes u do have to defend ur argument because words were made to share ideas about something we saw or felt. We wouldnt agree on the idea and make it a word unless we were visualizing the same concept that the word represents. So u cant be an atheist u cant even have an opinion because u say u have never seen God to prove he is real but u cant say u have seen all so if I watch a movie and u say the movie isnt real do I have to proves it's real or do u have to prove it's not. U say u have seen all movies and this one isn't real button yet I'm saying I've seen this is movie and I know it's real. Ur assuming u know all but yet I have to prove what I saw was real. All I have to do is prove there r things u dont know and ur concept falls apart. Any one thing that I can name that u dont know makes ur previous concept of assuming u have seen all as false from that point forward. U have to prove ur side I have to just disprove ur current understanding in a way that shows something outside ur current belief
The problem arises that you are making the argument for agnosticism, and not for God's existence.
Just as in a court of law, the burden of proof lies on the accuser and not on the defendant. The accuser makes the allegations and must sustain them with evidence.
It is humanity's experience that God does not exist, regardless of the amount of belief we apply, because belief is outside the methods we use to understand the universe and its mechanics, and none of those methods can even formulate a basic assumption for the existence of God.
In fact, the more we refine those methods, the more they do not require and exclude God. If you are to observe the progression of science you will see that early scientists' universal models did include God, to explain those things not covered by their models, but as science progressed, those models become more complex and expansive and God was gradually and finally completely excluded.
As such, for you to provide evidence of God, you are required to provide the models and methods by which you have concluded God's existence, and thus far, all that has truly been provided is belief, which is quite possibly the least convincing thing there is, as anything can be believed by its mere statement, without any sort of evidence.
For instance, I believe there is a race of purple spidermonkeys on some planet in the galaxy next door, I can't prove it, but I believe it to be so, and now I come to you and ask you to prove it's not so. Does that sound fair?
For me the "way the universe is connected and functions on all levels" is simply not enough. It may even be a valid observation, but it does not follow that it is necessarily attributed to God's work or proves its existence. In fact, none of our current models of universal mechanics require, assume or prove God in any way.