Posted: Jul 25, 2018 4:04 pm
by Sendraks
Keep It Real wrote:Right then; so what's the difference between believing there is no Loch Ness monster and believing there is no god? ie:


Which part of what I wrote did you not understand?

Keep It Real wrote:There is no god is again an evidenced position.

Incorrect.

Keep It Real wrote: The planet earth and it's astronomic neighbourhood exists. It has been scoured from top to bottom (NB to any reasonable level of resolution; much as with the "top to bottom" scouring of Loch Ness). There is nothing there that fits the description of god, nor any evidence of god's (Nessie's) actions. The positive claim of god's existence is disproven.

Currently we have only studied a tiny fraction of the universe. We are in no position to say with any certainty whether entities exist out there which could qualify as deities. Comparing the universe to a localised body of water in Scotland is stupid at best.

What can be said with certainty is that the claims made for the various actions of deities referred to in various scriptures, are not evidenced as having occurred or indeed are possible within our understanding of science. I would go further that if one is going to hinge the existence of a deity on the basis of those acts, then that deity cannot be shown to exist. However, most theists don't hinge their beliefs in that way.

From the atheist perspective, the glaring lack of evidence to support the claims of the various acts of deities, does allow for a position of gnostic atheism.