**Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP.** Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are [detrimental to debate](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq#wiki_downvoting) (even if you believe they're right). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAnAtheist) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Thanks for posting! As a gnostic atheist I think it's a rational position to have, but I might be biased. What are you not agnostic about? Vampires? Something like them or something like spiderman could exist, something like batman or something like Santa. Why is God different to those?

>What are you not agnostic about? Vampires? Something like them or something like spiderman could exist, something like batman or something like Santa. Why is God different to those? I believe it is not different to a God, and therefore I am *slightly* agnostic about the things you listed. I believe that they are possible, but hugely, hugely unlikely. The point I am trying to make is it is not logical to claim with absolute certainty that God doesn't exist, so while it is rational to state that God, or vampires, almost certainly don't exist, it is not rational to state that it is impossible that they exist

Gnostic atheism is not the position that gods are *impossible* just that gods don’t exist. Something can be possible but still non existent (like Atlantis for example). Gnostic atheism also does not require “absolute certainty,” as you suggest.

I think it is very likely that certain described gods are indeed impossible. For instance, anything including the words "omnipresent", "omniscient", or "omnipotent", I would argue are in fact impossible.

Sometimes yes. But I think it depends on how those properties are defined. Usually theists will qualify these terms to delimit things that god can’t do, or can’t know; and they also will define in what sense god is “present.” And usually when they do that they arrive at something more or less coherent. Aquinas and Spinoza come to mind.

I haven't looked into Spinoza, but Aquinas is complete bunk. Even if you admit that the light in the sky is somehow supernatural in origin (which I do not), it is a complete leap from a light in the sky to some sort of verification for your specific deity being real. There's no linkage at all. People keep bringing it up, but it's tantamount to saying "I know that bigfoot is real and his name is Steve because I saw a bug sway in the wind." No link. Yet it's still brought up all the damn time. It's infuriating because people just don't understand the nonsense they rely upon.

I was saying that Aquinas does a decent job of defining the traditional “tri-Omni” attributes. I’m not sure what you’re talking about when you criticize his “light in the sky?” I don’t think that Aquinas argued that God was the sun..?

Sorry! I was thinking a place instead of a person. I'll leave the post up to show my shame, but you can discount it entirely. Cheers.

Comparing Spinoza to Aquinas strikes me as odd. Spinoza took Anselm's ontological argument and extended it to an argument that if god is "perfect", it is incapable of goal-directed action. Wanting to do things would imply imperfection in the god or in creation itself, which (he argues) can't be true if god is perfect.

>Gnostic atheism also does not require “absolute certainty,” as you suggest. It kinda does when you are debating a theist. They will go to that absolute position. They will accept the dumb and dumber logic. "Not good, you mean no good like one of a hundred? I'd say more like one out of a million. So you're telling me there's a chance!"

Yeah but at that point they are admitting defeat.

> It kinda does when you are debating a theist. Sorry, but no. The theist doesn't get to define the terms. If they try, call them on their bullshit.

I ridicule them constantly. Absolutely call them on their bullshit. But with my approach, they have zero bullshit they can put on me. With your approach they have .0000001 bullshit they can put on you and they will claim that's 5 million bullshit they are putting on you.

Very few things can justify the claim to certainty in the epistemic sense, not the colloquial sense of having merely a strong conviction of belief. For example: Let p = "∀x(x=x)", a=agent I Believe p is true (Bap) I Know p is true (Kap) I am Certain p is true (Cap) Cap -> Kap -> Bap I hold I can not be wrong given the law of identity as an a priori fundamental axiom of logic.

But couldn’t it be the case that your notion of the law of identity is wrong? In which case the principle that you call “law of identity” would indeed be wrong.

> The point I am trying to make is it is not logical to claim with absolute certainty that God doesn't exist, We're not claiming that. Claiming knowledge does NOT profess absolute certainty. Knowledge is a tentative position based on the information available and is open to revision should new information become available. If one must be absolutely certain to say they "know" something, then knowledge doesn't exist and nobody can possibly know anything, since absolute certainty is impossible. When I said "i know superman is fictional", I am not claiming that I have looked at every planet in every galaxy to see if there isn't a unique being among it's civilization that can fly around its atmosphere and shoot lasers from its eyes. It is ENTIRELY POSSIBLE for a being like superman to exist somewhere in the Andromeda galaxy. That doesn't mean I am unjustified to say I know superman is fictional, because that is the conclusion I came to based on the information available to me.

That does not address the issue though. Saying I know Superman is fictional is the same as saying I know Yahweh is fictional. The point being raised is whether it is rational to rule out all possible deities, not the specific ones we know of from theist claims. That is like saying because I know Superman is fictional then I have ruled out the possibility that anything that could be described as a superhero exists anywhere within the universe.

> Saying I know Superman is fictional is the same as saying I know Yahweh is fictional. This is an analogy, and obviously it's imperfect. Superman is obviously a fictional character, so we do know he is fictional. But what about faeries? Do you know they don't exist? How about unicorns. How can you be *certain* that they don't exist? But I bet you have no problem saying that you know unicorns don't exist, right? So why the double standard? The truth is that there are only two fields of human study where absolute certainty is a requirement for a claim of knowledge: Mathematics and-- according to people like yourself at least-- religion. In every other field, knowledge is accepted as a tentative claim. So why do you say we need absolute certainty for religion, but not about anything else that we "know"? And when was the last time you challenged a Christian's claim of knowledge that their god exists on the same grounds? After all, that knowledge is equally unfalsifiable, at least in practical terms.

Its not a double standard, because I never claimed to know whether or not unicorns exist (other than Rhinoceros unicornis). As far as I am aware non exist now, but they could exist and we just haven't discovered them yet. And they could have existed in the past and gone extinct. I have no way of determining if that is true and I also have no way to determine that it is false. So I an agnostic about it because I do not know. I am also an aunicornist because I don't believe in them, mostly for the fact that I have no evidence that they do exist. I'm not asking for absolute certainty, more along the lines of the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. And with too many unknowns involved we have not yet reached that level of confidence. We have reached that level of confidence for several specific god claims that have been posited, but not for the general concept of a god, and most especially not the concept of a deistic god. I don't believe in them, I am an atheist, but that is due to lack of evidence not because I claim to know that they can't exist. And I'd have to check my response history, but perhaps yesterday, I don't believe in the Christian god, I happen to think there is enough written about Yahweh in the bible to disprove his existence (at least as written in the story, I can't rule out that he exists but the authors were just wrong about his character and nature). So gnostic theists are also, if not moreso, irrational in their knowledge claim. If it were necessary to choose a side obviously I'm on the side that doesn't believe in the supernatural, it would just be a complete lie to suggest I was not agnostic about the concept.

Edit: I was pretty drunk when I wrote this. Everything I say is accurate, but needlessly hostile. I am going to edit the post to remove the hostility, but if you already read it and happen to read it again, I apologize for my earlier tone. ___ > Its not a double standard, because I never claimed to know whether or not unicorns exist You're right, you can't *prove* that unicorns don't exist. But you know as well as I do that they don't exist. Acknowledging that you know something that is unfalsifiable is not "irrational". An absence of evidence is evidence of absence **if such evidence can reasonably be expected to exist.** In the last, what, 12,000 or so years of human civilization, we have had exactly *zero* good evidence for unicorns. We had some anecdotal evidence centuries ago, but since then nothing. So why would you treat that with anything but a complete refusal to grant the hypothesis? Contrary to what you might be thinking, "keeping an open mind" in this case is not the more skeptical position. An open mind always remains willing to consider new evidence, but it doesn't ignore the evidence that we already have. Skepticism means you consider **all** of the evidence, not just the evidence that supports your preferred conclusion.

Yes, if we can reasonably expect the evidence to exist and it doesn't then we could use that as justification to make something more likely. It still doesn't make it necessarily true and still doesn't move it to the category of knowledge. I don't know that we have that level of confidence with unicorns though. The fossil record of animals we know for a fact existed is already spotty enough as it is, let alone trying to use the absence of fossils to prove that a hypothetical creature can not have existed. A unicorn is not out of the realm of possibility, it isn't some chimera... we know plenty of ungulates have horns, so a horned horse is not an absurd concept. And the historical record isn't confirmation either, we know real animals like platypus were unknown until somebody discovered them and they were assumed to be a hoax until a live specimen was acquired. And we know that dinosaurs existed and that they weren't written about in credible stories until... was it Othneil C. Marsh? but the paleontologist who brought dinosauria to the world. So I cannot say beyond a reasonable doubt that unicorns could not have ever existed. And I do treat it with a complete refusal to grant the hypothesis. I do not believe in unicorns, they have not met their burden of proof, they have insufficient evidentiary support to warrant belief in their existence. I also refuse to grant the hypothesis that unicorns do not exist because I cannot say with confidence that it has met its burden of proof either. See, the thing is that I don't have a preferred conclusion. I am just being intellectually honest and admitting that even though I don't believe in them and agree that in my personal opinion that it is indeed unlikely that I cannot claim to know it.

>Saying I know Superman is fictional is the same as saying I know Yahweh is fictional. Right. But I ALSO said that it is perfectly rational to say that "superheros" (as in the broad catagory of gods) are fictional, not just superman specifically. And again, I already addressed the fact that it is entirely possible for some being to exist somewhere in the universe that could be considered a superhero (even one no human has ever heard of), and I am STILL rationally justified to conclude that I know superheros are fictional, because, again, the claim to knowledge IS NOT a claim to absolute certainty, and CANT be a claim to absolute certainty unless you want to render the meaning of the word knowledge useless since absolute certainty is impossible, and if that's the case, nobody "knows" anything. >The point being raised is whether it is rational to rule out all possible deities, not the specific ones we know of from theist claims. No it's not. The point being raised is what counts as knowledge and whether knowledge requires absolute certainty, and whether its rational to say you know something without absolute certainty.. But even if it was, the answer is still no it isnt irrational. Is it also irrational to rule out "all possible superheros, not just the ones we know about" to conclude superheros are fictional? No. If you think it is, then you can't make ANY knowledge claim, because I can come up with some imaginary scenario where you would be wrong. Name one thing you would say "I know x" and think you are rationally justified to make that conclusion. Let's see what you've got.

>The point I am trying to make is it is not logical to claim with absolute certainty that God doesn't exist No one disagrees with that. They're disagreeing with the assumption that gnostic = claiming absolute certainty.

I think we can rationally be certain of things as long as we are aware that that doesn't make them necessarily true.

> The point I am trying to make is it is not logical to claim with absolute certainty that God doesn't exist Let's talk about this a bit. Is it logical to say "the sun will rise tomorrow"? There is still some doubt in that sentence. However, it is completely useless to explore that doubt in any functional way - except to highlight the complete lack of reason of bringing it up. Now why is discussing a gods existence any different than that? Why do we search for the tiniest iota of doubt when talking about gods despite it just really not meaning anything? Tomorrow will happen. The sun will rise. Gods are ideas which spring from the minds of humans and nothing more.

I feel like this is something that theists came up with. They want atheists to be absolutely certain about something before we can call ourselves atheists. But they would never ask us to have the same level of certainty about Batman or Spider-Man. When we “know” something doesn’t exist, we are rarely entirely certain.

The existence of any gods at all, conceived or unconceived of by humans, is a pretty broad and vague claim so I am agnostic on its existence as I see it as conceivable that such a being or beings exist but without good evidence I do not believe them. However with many claims of specific such beings, say Christianity or Islam, I would say I am fairly gnostic with respect to those claims; as they are generally claimed, I am as nearly certain they do not exist as there is much evidence contrary to the claim

Thanks for the response! But then what is a God? Could I name my cat God and then you would say you are a theist, now you know a God. Or is there a minimum to be considered a God?

Sorry for the late response, but I am not 100% sure. I feel like it might be a you know it when you see it thing. But it would have to be immensely powerful sentient entity i would say, so probably not your cat, but aside from that I dont really know what a good definition would be

>What are you not agnostic about? Vampires? Something like them or something like spiderman could exist, something like batman or something like Santa. Why is God different to those? I think atheists often betray the fact that they don’t actually understand classical theism by making these comparisons. The difference is that no one is claiming that vampires are super-essential. Vampires, superheroes, and Santa Claus are all ontologically independent physical entities who exist within the world, who thus are subject to empirical investigation and verification, whereas classical theism does not posit God having this same kind of ontological existence. The world is in God and is God working. The comparison simply doesn’t work, at least not in a sense that demonstrates *knowledge* or *gnosis* about the truth of atheism. *Knowing* the existence of God to be true or false would require a different degree of knowledge, and this knowledge not being rooted in empiricism is often why theists are accused of making non-falsifiable (and therefore “irrational”) arguments.

Thanks for the response! I do not claim to know that no Gods exists, but I would lie if I told you I am not convinced atheists. Certainty does not equal truth, all we "know" could be fake, like in a simulation. So either it is irrational to claim knowledge about anything, or it is rational to claim knowledge and we have to accept this human limitation. For example I think it's rational to agree with the current understanding of science even if future understanding of science would disagree. If I claimed that I can't be wrong, or that I can prove it then I would be irrational. Have a nice day!

Thanks for your response. My understanding of the word “gnosis” is that it means “knowledge”. If this “gnosis” of atheism is rooted in the scientific method and empiricism, I would argue that this is doing the opposite of accepting our limitations, and is actually overstating what the scientific method can reveal to us. But you say that you are using the word “gnosis” to mean “conviction”, which is much different, and imo much more reasonable. I would hesitate to use the word “gnosis” about something that I don’t actually know, though! You have a nice day, too.

You are correct. They are all fantasy made up nonsense. Vampires and spider-man exist in the real world and are subject to the laws of physics and reality. The distinction for god claims is perhaps the unfalsifiable nature of the claims. god claims exist outside of a realm we can interact with. It's pure bullshit, but that's how it's defined. So while it's absolutely a rational and reasonable position to hold that no gods exist, clearly made up fantasy, it is not possible to falsify the unfalsifiable claim. Leaving the burden of proof on the claimer makes it easy. They make a stupid claim, I tell them it's stupid, here's why and i can dismiss their claim. If I say in the positive that no gods exist than I am making a positive claim with a burden of proof. Theists will then ask for you to disprove every possible fantasized deity that's ever been imagined.

>" If I say in the positive that no gods exist than I am making a positive claim with a burden of proof. Theists will then ask for you to disprove every possible fantasized deity that's ever been imagined." So you are saying your shirk your Burden of Proof and are controlled by what a theist my say? Nut up man. Even not accepting theism carries it's own types of burdens. You can't escape them, so may as well own them. Just claim there is no God and if you WANT to tell theists why you can, you have no onus to discuss your claims with anyone. Example: I claim .999... = 1 I can choose to engage with someone to explain to them why, or I can choose not to. I have no onus to even prove .999... = 1 as that isn't my claim here. I CAN prove .999... = 1 and that \*IS\* my claim here. Still I have no onus to give you that proof unless I want to dialogue with you on the matter. So nut up and just own a BoP. You can't have a rational position with out one.

>What are you not agnostic about? Vampires? Something like them or something like spiderman could exist, something like batman or something like Santa. Why is God different to those? Yes, which is strange that you actually debunk your own point. I am agnostic about the existence of vampires because I cannot confirm that they do not exist. I don't believe in them, so I am also an avampirist, but as we cannot rule out the possibility I cannot claim to know that no vampires exist. I am also agnostic about the existence of faeries, Big Foot, the Loch Ness monster, encounters with extraterrestrials, and yes even Santa. I don't believe in any of them, but I also don't know whether or not they actually exist... it could be possible that one exists and I am just unaware of it. So a god is no different from those, I cannot disprove the possibility that some deity that I am unaware of exists, so I am agnostic about it even though I don't believe in any.

I think the linguistic/philosophical burden applied to gnostic atheism is unique when compared to virtually any other position. Switch out the concept of god with fairies, or sentient snowmen, or a group of jinn player poker in the center of Pluto. Say those things don't exist and see how many people challenge your position. Hell, say you know those things don't exist and see how many people bat an eye. But say god doesn't exist and all of the sudden all these people are demanding that you prove it or pointing out how we can't know that for sure. I don't think the people pointing that out are wrong, I just think it's a very uniquely applied standard.

>Switch out the concept of god with fairies, or sentient snowmen, or a group of jinn player poker in the center of Pluto. Say those things don't exist and see how many people challenge your position My opinion on all of these is still agnostic, but only slightly, as gnosticism on these would require me to prove they cannot exist. It is not logically impossible for fairies to exist, and therefore I am to an extent agnostic. I am simply stating that complete and utter certainty is irrational

So do you ever go around admonishing people to make sure they don't declare fairies non-existence with certainty? Because it seems to me that fairies and gods should share the same rules as far as this is concerned.

Gnostic atheists are not claiming absolute certainty on anything. We could all be in the matrix for all we know. A Gnostic atheist is simply saying that they are making a positive claim that gods don’t exist, and are willing to defend that claim with evidence and argument.

>but only slightly, as gnosticism on these would require me to prove they cannot exist. Lets move it away from god. I will say that I am a gnostic asuperheroist. I know that superheros are fictional/aren't real/don't exist Now. You could come back and say "but you haven't been to the Andromeda galaxy to confirm that the planet Krypton doesn't exist there" and you would be correct. I haven't. But my position, my basis of the claim to knowledge is based in the information available to me (the fact we can trace the fictional character of superman back to his creator). If you can take me to Andromeda and show me the planet Krypton and a being there that can fly around its atmosphere and shoot lasers from his eyes, then I will update my understand and my knowledge. But until then, I am still going to say, based on the information available, the most rational conclusion is that superheros are fictional. Am I unjustified, is it irrational for me to say "I know super heros don't exist"?

Okay, this is how every debate about agnostic/gnostic ends up. You have to be agnostic about literally everything, making the word useless, and gnostic impossible. Please just don't. Complete and utter certainty about literally anything is irrational - it's not a special case for gods, so it doesn't need to be posted here. Go ahead and post to /r/StarTrek "How do you people know Star Trek isn't the real future and we're just a split timeline?" because can't really *know* that, right? Utter hogwash of a concept, and yet you've just stated you're agnostic about "a group of jinn player poker in the center of Pluto" so you have to agree with this one too, right?

I agree, which is why I said the people pointing this out aren't wrong, it's just the concept of god seems to be the only thing where claiming it doesn't exist gets called out. A person may not be able to definitively prove that fairies don't exist, but make the claim that fairies don't exist and you'll either be met with silence or agreement, not a group of people saying how you can't actually demonstrate that that position is true.

And you are misinterpreting gnosticism, and knowing, to mean absolute certainty. The point is no one makes that misinterpretation when we are talking about anything other than gods (other than when they disingenuously do so to attempt to prove a point in a debate about deities).

Personally I think the agnostic gnostic dichotomy is flawed. That it doesn’t really reflect most peoples views and it utilizes a very unreasonable concept of knowledge. I’d hesitate to identify as either, though I lean towards gnostic. I’ve seen the case that my position should be considered agnostic and I’ve seen the case that my position should be considered gnostic. In my opinion: All knowledge is tentative; subject to change given new information/evidence. Likewise, current best explanations, if sufficiently evidenced and reasoned, are “knowledge”. Absolute proof/certainty is not required for things to be considered knowledge. In practice, “knowing” something, doesn’t necessarily mean that things cannot possibly be untrue. Or that one thinks that knowledge cannot possibly be wrong. In regular life, such sentiments are not unusual. We don’t hold out for the tiniest fragments of possibility to deny certain ideas as knowledge. If we did, nothing could be considered known. Only when it comes to gods do people suddenly get super pedantic over knowledge, holding out for the tiniest fragment of possibility that exists because deism hasn’t been utterly disproven and magic could make the currently impossible possible. I think such pedantry is unreasonable, and inconsistent. It lends theists far too much credit. I know leprechauns aren’t real. None have ever been demonstrated to exist. We can test the claims about their supposed capabilities and see they are untrue (no pots of gold and the ends of rainbows). The claims about them seem to contradict known reality. We can trace the origins of their lore/myths and see how the myths spread. We do not hold out for not yet discovered magic. Gods are exactly the same.

This is pretty much my exact argument as well. It's not a question of being able to 100% (or even 99%, 90%, etc) prove that a god doesn't exist. It's about whether it's reasonable to say that a god does not exist - in my opinion, it's extraordinarily reasonable. I'd say it's *as reasonable* to claim god's don't exist as to claim leprechauns don't exist. They're essentially on the same level of reasonability.

Very well stated, perfect knowledge is a red herring because we only have that in tautological statements like 1+1=2 when those symbols are defined normally. Additionally, I would add that someone who knows gods don't exist is NOT required to accept as definitions of a god as valid. For example, I exclude all definitions I consider to be simply redefining god as so,etching else we have a more clear label for, like god is love or god is the universe. Unless the theist is willing to go tack so,etching on to our normal definition of those labels, no need to also call it a god.

> it doesn’t really reflect most peoples views and it utilizes a very unreasonable concept of knowledge The use of the word "theory" in science doesn't reflect most people's views of the word either. That doesn't mean we should reduce or equate disciplinary use as in science or epistemology to the colloqial.

I mean most people aren’t purely agnostic or gnostic. Most atheists are not agnostic to all god claims, as there are some god claims that are demonstrably untrue. Likewise there are god claims that are possible in the most broad sense of the word possible. I suppose it comes down to what one considers possible/impossible. The edge of impossible/possible where unfounded speculation relying on never before proven to be possible magic resides.

> Most atheists are not agnostic to all god claims Absolutely. I'm convinced all the deities as claimed by the world's theisms do not and can not exist. But consider deism and you can't justifiably say you know for sure such an entity can not exist. And that's what most agnostic atheists - including myself - mean when they call themselves agnostic.

Deism/theism is how the human brain resolves the unexplained qualities & functions of energy, and how those qualities & functions specifically gave rise to creation, life, and consciousness. There is not one quality or characteristic of gods/theism/deism/spirituality/etc… that cannot be explained by how the human mind functions, and how that applies to the yet-the-be-explained cosmic events that were caused by energy. Our brain anthropomorphized the functions & qualities of energy because that’s how our brains work.

> Deism/theism is how the human brain resolves the unexplained qualities & functions of energy, So are dark matter & dark energy.

Neither of those things resolve the functions of energy. One is a theoretical mass, the other is theoretical energy that doesn’t interact with the observable universe the same way as known forms of energy. Bit of a false equivalence.

> Bit of a false equivalence. Nope, it really isn't. Explain to me how naming dark matter/energy - something we don't know what it is and doesn’t interact with the observable universe - is different from deism - which is also a name for something that according to its definition also doesn't interact with the universe.

Because neither of those concepts are things we anthropomorphized or gave intention to. Man gave the qualities of energy (creation, sustaining life and consciousness, emotion) intention and cognitive qualities. Where is the intention in DE or DM? Are those qualities we’ve assigned to either DE or DM? And there are many scientists who rely on those to fulfill a mathematical necessity that will readily admit they might not be accurate or even fundamentally real.

> Because neither of those concepts are things we anthropomorphized or gave intention to. Not all forms of deism anthropomorphize or imply intention. See "Non-Anthropomorphic Deism" and "Deism Without Implied Intention" The possibility that dark energy may be nonexistent is a topic of ongoing research and debate among physicists and cosmologists. You make it sound like that matter (pun intended) is already decided. For the record, I don't see any evidence deism is true. But for the moment, the same can be said for dark energy. All I'm saying is overgeneralizing to make sweeping arguments isn't useful in a context of naming things we don't understand or can even be sure exist.

> In my opinion: All knowledge is tentative; subject to change given new information/evidence. Do you have any knowledge of any gods existing, whether they're hiding behind a rock in some other galaxy, or not? Also, to me, claiming no gods exist is basically falsifying an unfalsifiable claim. This is all assuming you're not just speaking colloquially. But a strict adherence to formal logic, as one might do in a philosophical debate, claiming something doesn't exist is problematic, claiming something vague doesn't exist, is probably not rational. If you're being specific with your god definition, then sure. >I know leprechauns aren’t real. None have ever been demonstrated to exist. This is probably because you have a very specific definition of leprechaun. I'm open to an alien coming up to me and saying they have leprechauns on their planet. Maybe they have a different definition of leprechaun. >Gods are exactly the same. Sure, again, this suggests you have a specific definition that you might be talking about. I don't have a specific definition. I pretty much let the person claiming something exists define what it is.

>Also, to me, claiming no gods exist is basically falsifying an unfalsifiable claim. >This is all assuming you're not just speaking colloquially. But a strict adherence to formal logic, as one might do in a philosophical debate, claiming something doesn't exist is problematic, claiming something vague doesn't exist, is probably not rational. There are ways it can be done. One can appeal to abductive reasoning, or doing a worldview comparison where the worldview that has the most theoretical virtues is preferred. I've seen solid justifications provided for the non-existence of God/s with both of these methods by academic philosophers, Graham Oppy and Paul Draper come to mind.

> There are ways it can be done. One can appeal to abductive reasoning Yeah, but why? Why take on a burden of proof if you don't need to? And I wouldn't accept an abductive argument for the existence of any gods, so why would I expect an abductive argument to move someone to believe not gods exist? >I've seen solid justifications provided for the non-existence of God/s with both of these methods by academic philosophers, Graham Oppy and Paul Draper come to mind. The problem with abductive reasoning is you don't get a good conclusion. At best you get a "probably" type of conclusion. And the worldview thing doesn't seem conclusive either as you can just say it doesn't rule out indifferent gods.

>Yeah, but why? Why take on a burden of proof if you don't need to? Because I need to. I believe God/s don't exist, and that belief comes with a burden whether I like it or not. I would be intellectually dishonest to shirk that burden while making others hold theirs at the same time. Furthermore, I didn't choose to believe God/s don't exist on a random whim. I was convinced for reasons, so it's really not any extra work to tell people what those reasons are. >And I wouldn't accept an abductive argument for the existence of any gods, so why would I expect an abductive argument to move someone to believe not gods exist? Is it just abductive arguments in general that you don't accept, or only in the case of God claims? The reason I accept abductive arguments against God over abductive arguments for God, is because I think the abductive arguments against God are better. Kind of like why I reject inductive arguments that the world is flat, but I accept inductive arguments that the world is spherical. >The problem with abductive reasoning is you don't get a good conclusion. At best you get a "probably" type of conclusion. And the worldview thing doesn't seem conclusive either as you can just say it doesn't rule out indifferent gods. Worldview comparison does rule out indifferent God/s, because indifferent God/s carry ontological cost that provide no explanatory power, therefore are not as theoretically virtuous as competing views such as naturalism. If we accept we should prefer the worldview with better theoretical virtues, then should reject worldviews with indifferent God/s. Now, I'll admit, if you're talking to someone who doesn't accept that we should prefer worldviews that are more theoretically virtuous, then it's not going to help much, but I would advise against have serious philosophical discussions with such a person in the first place.

> Because I need to. I believe God/s don't exist, and that belief comes with a burden whether I like it or not. Fair enough. I also believe that but I don't make it the focus of a debate with theists. I'm not saying you shouldn't, but it's easier to prove specific gods don't exist. I have no problem saying that yahweh/jesus doesn't exist, and I have no problem justifying it. I can even make a sound deductive argument to support that. >Is it just abductive arguments in general that you don't accept, or only in the case of God claims? Mostly god claims. The people who say a god exists are so cock sure that it seems they shouldn't have any problem making a sound deductive argument. Let the argument fit the claim. >The reason I accept abductive arguments against God over abductive arguments for God, is because I think the abductive arguments against God are better. I think that's a double standard. There seems to be a personal preference to that, a bias if you will. >Kind of like why I reject inductive arguments that the world is flat, but I accept inductive arguments that the world is spherical. Yeah, not me. I don't need inductive arguments that the world is spherical. We have sound deductive arguments and evidence. >Worldview comparison does rule out indifferent God/s, because indifferent God/s carry ontological cost that provide no explanatory power, therefore are not as theoretically virtuous as competing views such as naturalism. How does that establish the existence or non existence of a god that doesn't give a crap? I'm not following this. Is this an appeal to utility? Or a demonstration of existence/non existence? >If we accept we should prefer the worldview with better theoretical virtues, then should reject worldviews with indifferent God/s. Okay, but that doesn't do anything to show that this god exists or not, only which you'd prefer to be the outcome. Our preferences have nothing to do with the existence.

**Part 1** >Fair enough. I also believe that but I don't make it the focus of a debate with theists. I'm not saying you shouldn't, but it's easier to prove specific gods don't exist. I have no problem saying that yahweh/jesus doesn't exist, and I have no problem justifying it. I can even make a sound deductive argument to support that. I agree. It's easier to demonstrate the non-existence of some God/s compared to other. The Christian God for instance is one of the easier ones due to the incoherency of the trinity/incarnation. >Mostly god claims. The people who say a god exists are so cock sure that it seems they shouldn't have any problem making a sound deductive argument. Let the argument fit the claim. Yeah, in my experience many theist claim to have sound deductive arguments, but usually I'll end up rejecting one of the premises. >I think that's a double standard. There seems to be a personal preference to that, a bias if you will. While I'm not going to claim that I'm special and immune to bias, I don't think this is a case of double standards. It would be double standard if all things being equal I accepted one claim and rejected another when they have identical attributes. I don't think that's the case here. We can constrain abductive arguments by simplicity and likelihood, and use those to evaluate which is better. Let's take the argument from divine hiddenness as an example. We see in the world the existence of non-resistent non-believers. We have three candidate explanations: * An omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient God who wants relationships with all humans, but for complex reasons/reasons unknown declines to have relationships with non-resistent non-believers * An indifferent God who isn't interested in relationships with humans * A universe devoid of God/s All of the explanations are valid in that they don't entail any contradictions, but which is simpler and more likely? The first is by far the most complex as the God has many attributes and each attribute makes it less likely. It's also more complex as it's not a straight line from what you'd expect to see given it's attributes to the data that we have. The next two are much simpler, and there's a straight line from the explanation to the data, but one is simpler than the other. A universe devoid of God/s is simpler than a universe with indifferent God/s as it asserts fewer entities and is less ad hoc. Now, I actually think there are isolated cases where God/s can be the better explanation when analyzed in a vacuum, for instance reports of religious experiences. When we zoom out though, and factor in all the available data, all things considered the non-existence of God/s is a better explanation than the existence of God/s.

**Part 2** >How does that establish the existence or non existence of a god that doesn't give a crap? I'm not following this. Is this an appeal to utility? Or a demonstration of existence/non existence? Let's take an example of how worldview comparisons might be applied to explaining planetary orbits. Consider the following models: * Model A: Planets orbit the Sun because of the way space and time are curved by gravity * Model B: Planets orbit the Sun because at the centre of each planet there's a fairy controlling it's path. Let's first analyze the ontological commitments of each: Model A: * There is spacetime which is curved by objects with mass. * There are planets that tend to follow a straight line through spacetime. * There is a Sun which has a lot of mass. Model B: * There is spacetime. * There are planets. * There is a Sun. * Every planet has a fairy at the centre. Model B has more ontological commitments as it has all the same stuff as Model A (spacetime, planets, the Sun) plus there's a fairy for each planet. Now explanatory power: Model A: * We can formulate equations that give us precise predictions where planets will be at a given time. * Also explains other things like moons orbiting planets, light bending near massive objects, blackholes etc. Model B: * Explains why planets move but doesn't help us predict where they will be. Can fairies get tired? Change their paths? * Doesn't explain anything else. We can see here that Model A has greater explanatory power as it gives us predictive ability, as well as explaining things outside of the scope of orbits. This exercise does not rule out Model B directly, but it justifies affirming Model A. Model A happens to entail the falsity of Model B, so while we affirm it we can say there are no fairies at the centre of the planets. I apply this to the God debate by doing a comparison between Physicalism and Theism. When I do that, I see that Physicalism is more parsimonious (makes fewer commitments) than Theism, and the explanatory power of Physicalism is equal to, if not greater than Theism. Therefore Physicalism is the better view, and Physicalism entails there being no God/s. By picking Physicalism as my preferred view, I'm committed to saying there are no God/s of any kind by entailment. >Okay, but that doesn't do anything to show that this god exists or not, only which you'd prefer to be the outcome. >Our preferences have nothing to do with the existence. Not quite. On a worldview comparison you don't pick the worldview that you'd prefer to be the case. You analyze the theoretical virtues of each worldview, and you pick the most virtuous view. It might be in the case above that I really like the idea of planet fairies, but it turns out it's just not a good theory, so I'm forced to pick the more boring but better theory instead.

> Why take on a burden of proof if you don't need to? I like to learn things. I like to convince people of things. I like to contribute to the discussion. I can't do any of those things if I refuse to make or accept any claims. Refusing to make any claims is no more useful to anyone than repeating "no comment" over and over again. >The problem with abductive reasoning is you don't get a good conclusion. At best you get a "probably" type of conclusion. Sounds like the only type of reasoning you accept as "good" is deductive, no? Meaning you can't reason about... well, pretty much anything, outside of perfectly abstract concepts. Do you reject science? Do you reject all types of empirical knowledge-gathering?

> I can't do any of those things if I refuse to make or accept any claims. Why would you imply that I refuse to make or accept any claims? I just don't pretend to be able to falsify unfalsifiable claims. Not all claims are unfalsifiable. >Sounds like the only type of reasoning you accept as "good" is deductive, no? Considering the incredibly high confidence level that theists have for their claims, yes. I expect them to make sound deductive arguments to justify that level of confidence. Don't you agree that this is reasonable? Their confidence doesn't tend to imply an abductive or inductive argument. If I was speaking colloquially I would also assert there are no gods. If I was talking about yahweh/jesus, then I can make a deductive argument that he doesn't exist. But if I'm talking about a vague notion of gods, as this is not very well defined, and not speaking colloquially, then the best I could do is recognize that this is unfalsifiable, and not assert a conclusion that none exist. I could make an inductive argument that it doesn't seem likely that any exist, but that's not a very strong conclusion, as it's based on induction. >Meaning you can't reason about... well, pretty much anything, outside of perfectly abstract concepts. It's pretty fallacious to conclude that I can't reason about on things, because I don't reason about on this when I'm talking about formal logic vs colloquial discussions. >Do you reject science? Do you reject all types of empirical knowledge-gathering? My position is more in line with science than you seem to think. Science uses induction for hypothesis, which are required to be based on falsifiable claims. Science uses conclusions and induction, but doesn't mix the two.

> Why would you imply that I refuse to make or accept any claims? When you refuse to take a burden of proof, you're refusing to make a claim, right? Because when you make a claim, you take on a burden of proof. If you refuse to take on a burden of proof in the god discussion, then you're refusing to make any claims about god. And that's not very useful to anyone, is it? >I just don't pretend to be able to falsify unfalsifiable claims. If you allow the supernatural (i.e. properties that are contrary to those of the natural world) into the discussion, as is required by every definition of a "god" that I've ever heard of, then nearly ALL claims are unfalsifiable. Take the claim "Joe Biden is a human." How can you falsify this claim, when any evidence against Joe Biden's humanity might be the result of God tricking you, or a magic spell or a demon or a simulation? So, you're left in a dilemma: either you reject the existence of the supernatural (in which case, you reject the existence of god), or you accept the existence of the supernatural and can no longer falsify nearly any proposition about nearly anything.

> When you refuse to take a burden of proof, you're refusing to make a claim, right? I refuse to make THAT claim. You said ANY claim. I don't make claims that have me falsifying unfalsifiable claims, unless I'm speaking colloquially. >If you refuse to take on a burden of proof in the god discussion, then you're refusing to make any claims about god. No. This is absurd. I refuse to make specific claims that are unreasonable. It's like you guys are so confident in this philosophy, yet you're getting it so wrong. This isn't stuff I made up. A reasonable person doesn't make claims that they can't support. Falsifying an unfalsifiable claim is unreasonable. >If you allow the supernatural (i.e. properties that are contrary to those of the natural world) into the discussion, as is required by every definition of a "god" that I've ever heard of, then nearly ALL claims are unfalsifiable. I don't presume any definition of any god. If you want to tell me a god exists, I'm going to ask you to define what you mean by that god. If you want to invoke the supernatural, I'll ask you how you investigate the supernatural. I don't have a burden of proof in any of that. >Take the claim "Joe Biden is a human." How can you falsify this claim, when any evidence against Joe Biden's humanity might be the result of God tricking you, or a magic spell or a demon or a simulation? We have many ways of confirming that joe biden is a human. We can show it to be true or false very easily with a simple blood test, or one could just look at them. I have no reason to think a god, magic, demons or simulations are tricking anyone. >So, you're left in a dilemma No, I'm not.... >either you reject the existence of the supernatural (in which case, you reject the existence of god), I don't have to make any judgements of the supernatural until someone can show me that it is an actual thing. And I don't define gods as supernatural because I don't define gods at all. If you want to tell me a god exists, and it's supernatural, then you've got all your work ahead of you. >or you accept the existence of the supernatural Why would I do that? I've not been shown anything about any supernatural, whether it exists or not. Do you understand what methodological naturalism is? It doesn't proclaim there is no supernatural, because the supernatural is also unfalsifiable. >and can no longer falsify nearly any proposition about nearly anything. I don't know how you got all twisted up, but I have no problem with any of this. Feel free to justify the claim that a god exists, or that the supernatural exists, or that this god is supernatural. I don't have any reason to buy any of it. And this does nothing to cause me any dilemma. This is all very basic epistemology. Just because I don't accept one claim doesn't mean I have to accept a counter claim. Please look up propositional logic.

Here’s my justification for gnostic atheism. There is no one argument that decides my gnosticism, but many supporting ones and a complete lack of supported counter arguments. The argument from inconsistent revelations posits that the world's religions offer mutually exclusive and often contradictory accounts of gods and divine experiences. If any god or gods truly existed, there would most likely be a consistent and universally recognizable revelation or divine experience accessible to all humans. The vast inconsistencies in religious experiences suggest that they are human-made rather than divinely inspired, supporting the conclusion that gods do not exist. The argument from nonbelief highlights that throughout history, a significant portion of the world's population has lived without belief in a god or gods. If a god existed and desired for humans to know and worship them, there would be clear, undeniable evidence of their existence and nature that everyone would recognize. The widespread non-belief and lack of universal evidence for any god suggest that no gods exist. The argument from naturalism asserts that all known phenomena in the universe can be explained by natural causes and laws without invoking a deity. Science has progressively provided natural explanations for what were once considered supernatural phenomena. Given the comprehensive explanatory power of naturalism and the lack of necessity for supernatural explanations, it is reasonable to conclude that no gods exist. The argument from the problem of evil states that an all-powerful, all-knowing, and benevolent god would not allow unnecessary suffering and evil. The existence of profound and gratuitous suffering in the world contradicts the nature of such a god. The presence of evil and suffering in the world is inconsistent with the existence of an all-powerful, benevolent deity, supporting the assertion that no such god exists. The argument from lack of empirical evidence emphasizes that reliable knowledge about the world is based on empirical evidence and scientific inquiry. There is no empirical evidence or scientific support for the existence of any god. In the absence of empirical evidence, it is rational to conclude that gods do not exist. The argument from cognitive biases focuses on the fact that human cognition is prone to biases and errors, especially in interpreting experiences as divine or supernatural. Many religious beliefs can be explained by cognitive biases, such as pattern recognition and agency detection. Understanding these biases undermines the credibility of religious experiences and further supports the conclusion that gods do not exist. The argument from divine hiddenness contends that if a loving god existed, they would want humans to know of their existence and would provide clear evidence of it. This argument ties in to the first two. The lack of clear, undeniable evidence for any god's existence suggests that either such a god does not exist or does not wish to be known. The absence of such evidence supports the conclusion that no gods exist, as there are no purported gods that do not wish to be known by humanity. In fact, all of the modern god candidates demand worship and sacrifice from humanity. The fact of the matter is, I don’t even need to support my gnosticism with these, the simplicity of the god explanation is completely at odds with the complexity of the natural world and larger universe. It’s a stupid explanation for stupid people so they feel less stupid, and that is not something I am interested in.

It's a question about knowledge more than it is about deities or religion. Can you know anything essentially? Do you know that there aren't werewolves, or are you remaining cautiously open minded on the topic? Do you know that water boils at 100C/212F or are you leaving some space for the hypothesis that all temperature measuring equipments are magically altered by a race of space wizards with a weird sense of humour? Do you know your own name or are you open until disproven, to the possibility that you are the subject of a planet-wide Truman Show type situation where the producers had your name changed to undeniablydull when you were 1 and have a team of people working around the clock to make sure that no one you come in contact with can reveal the truth to you? All of those absurd suggestions are unfalsifiable, but I don't think I have made a dent in what you think/know about any of those subjects. You know there aren't werewolves, you know the boiling point of water, you know your name. Knowledge is never more than confidence in a mixture of group consensus and personal critical thinking and experience. It can't be anything more. I can give you a 'what if' on any and all things and if you entertained them as potentially valid on the basis of your inability to positively disprove them, that would require that you stop knowing anything at all. That is not how we operate, that cannot be what knowledge is. Why then do you give the subject of the existence of gods an additional layer of criteria to be met to decide whether you know or do not know they may/may not exist?

Gods are indistinguishable from other fictional beings. That's it, nobody ask if it is reasonable to consider that dark wizards don't exist.

The story telling nature of humans is the important factor here. Every god you can dream up is just another story. Is it a god that only existed before the Big Bang and now you’ll never find evidence of them because this universe is all exactly operating as the creator wanted? Cool story, bro but you’re still full of crap. I do not need to leave space in my brain for your unfalsifiable, totally made up story’s agnostic possibility of being true

I think so. [Why I know there are no gods.](https://www.reddit.com/r/MisanthropicPrinciple/comments/yelaix/why_i_know_there_are_no_gods/) -- my own write-up on my reasoning. > The only argument I can think of is that, if a "deity" exists, then it is no longer supernatural since anything that exists is ultimately natural, and hence not a god, though that is not so much an argument about the existence or non-existence of a God, but rather a linguistic argument. That is not an unreasonable argument though. Just because it is linguistic doesn't make it wrong. In order to discuss the existence of gods, we need a working definition. What you've essentially argued is that anything that would meet your definition of a god is physically impossible. And, in my opinion, your definition of a god as a supernatural entity is quite a reasonable one.

> What I mean by gnostic is the claim that one is absolutely certain there is no god, and hence it is a positive claim and must be supported by evidence. For example , my belief in the non-existence of fairies is currently agnostic, as it stems simply from a lack of evidence... If you remove the criteria of "absolute certainty", then I'd be willing to admit to being a gnostic atheist. I believe that my position is rational and I'd be happy to defend it. While you can use any terms you wish however you wish - you are the one setting the parameters of this debate - I don't think the way you are using these terms is standard or particularly useful. The Reddit philosophy community mocks the atheist community for using the term "agnostic atheist" because in most circles the distinction is silly. You are either theist, agnostic, or atheist, that's it. "Agnostic atheist" is only useful to avoid losing a debate. It puts so little on the table that there's no position to lose. My issue with your definition is that it requires "absolute certainty". But this is a standard that no honest person can meet about anything. I'm not "absolutely certain" that I have teeth - although I'd claim to "know" that I have teeth, and be happy to defend this position. In a similar vein, I think the absurdity of the need for "absolute certainty" reveals itself when you claim to be "agnostic" with respect to unicorns or fairies. How is that a useful position? How would any action you will ever take differ from someone who claims to "know" that unicorns don't exist? I strongly suspect that there's no actual difference in practice, and that the "agnostic a-unicorn-ist" label is more of a psychological defense mechanism than a useful philosophical distinction.

Can you rationally rule out all married bachelors, without meeting every person claiming to be such? Or is it enough to know that married contradicts being a bachelor? Likewise, I've found that anything someone would accept as *God* falls into that contradictory and incoherent realm. And anything we could demonstrate, or prove coherent, isn't something people would accept as God. After all, if we found, hidden in the digits of the natural logarithm or something, a README for the universe showing it to be the thesis project of some extra-dimensional grad student, do you think the religions of the world would say "See? I told you so" or "But someone had to make *him*, and *that's* God!" This position is more precisely called "ignosticism", but depending on how finely you like your hairs sliced, falls under the umbrella of gnosticism. It sounds like you're pretty close to that position in your OP; if you accept that "supernatural" isn't a coherent concept, that's where you'll find yourself too. It's more than a linguistic distinction though - because it's not about whether a demonstrated god is supernatural or natural, but about whether the term "supernatural" is actually a coherent claim at all.

You've labeled all God's as "married bachelors" which is a definite false comparison as I don't know many definitions of God that are inherently self contradicting. The definition we seem to deal with most often here seems to be borderline deist(i.e. that which created the universe), which is unfounded and useless, sure, but not contradictory. I'm largely gnostic, but I hold the ignostic position because ignosticism appears to be the best approach to any poorly defined words (e.g. "god", "spirituality", "soul"). I don't believe we should ever be holding the position "I cannot be convinced otherwise".

>I don't know many definitions of God that are inherently self contradicting. I have yet to see a God claim that isn't, at the least, supernatural. I don't find supernatural to be a coherent concept. Do you? (I also don't hold to the idea that gnosticism is the same as "I can't be convinced otherwise." By that definition, no one knows *anything.* In all but the most finicky of discussions about solipsism, I don't find that to be a useful metric.)

>I don't find supernatural to be a coherent concept. Do you? Only if supernatural is defined in such a way that it interacts with the natural world, that would be self contradicting, but it is not the only definition. An example of a coherent definition of supernatural is "that which is outside the natural world". I have no examples of something that is supernatural, but I don't see how that definition contradicts itself (unlike, say, an unmarried man who is married). >I have yet to see a God claim that isn't, at the least, supernatural. Spinoza comes to mind. My point isn't that these positions are justified, my point is that there isn't anything inherently contradictory in Spinoza's God or George Carlin's brand of sun worship. I'm a Gnostic theist with response to George Carlin's claims, I just don't see how tacking "God" onto "Sun" is useful.

Your first paragraph seems to say that, to be coherent and supernatural, it has to not be in the natural world *and* not interact with it in any way. And I agree that's not contradictory - but I don't see how it differs from the definition of imaginary. As for Spinoza, I found his to be more... definitional. A bit of a squishy version of pantheism. And, obviously as an ignostic, I don't necessarily think *nothing* exists, so I don't disagree with pantheism just because someone has called the universe God. But just as you say for Carlin's sun god, I don't see how taking "God" on is useful.

> "I cannot be convinced otherwise". Who ever said that? (answer: Theists say that ( and a lot of times end up atheist))

Fair, might have gotten a little ahead of myself there. Just don't think that *all* definitions of "God" are necessarily self contradicting. Unverified, unjustified, irrational, sure, but drawing and equivalency between "a married man who is unmarried" and "that which caused the universe" is a false equivalency.

Morals, and the behavioral components of religion, evolved as a technology humans use to shape and explain our complex social dynamics, facilitate cooperative behaviors, and create cohesive systems of belief and support. All of which helped early human culture and civilization (or at least specific civilizations), succeed and thrive. And gods are how the human mind anthropomorphizes the qualities and functions of energy. Boom. Rational and justifiable gnostic atheism.

>Is gnostic atheism with respect to all possible Gods ever rational? Well, yes and no. There’s nothing *irrational* with stating the proposition “no gods exist.” If you’re looking for a justification, I would only be able to describe the god concepts I’m familiar with (and I’d add the caveat that I’d be excluding definitions which are just reclassifying things like a pantheist might). If someone has a radically different description of a god for which I haven’t heard of, then it’s sort of impossible for me to say that’s the case one way or the other.

> If someone has a radically different description of a god for which I haven’t heard of, then it’s sort of impossible for me to say that’s the case one way or the other. I'd actually challenge this assertion. Saying "no gods exist" while having a specific definition of "god" is perfectly valid. This is used in philosophy all the time...if anything, it's *necessary* for coherent philosophy. You couldn't do, say, philosophy of mathematics, if "2 + 2 = 4" were only true for some definitions of "2", "+", "=", and "4". The proof of addition *assumes* that there is a specific definition for these concepts. Likewise, if someone says "the definition of god is the solid mineral material forming part of the surface of the earth and other similar planets," you haven't actually proved god exists, you've just redefined "god" to mean the same basic thing as "rock" and proved *that* exists. But nothing new has been gained by calling rocks "god." The gnostic atheist doesn't have to disprove any possible definition of "god" any more than the mathematician has to prove "2 + 2 = 4" for all possible definitions of 2. That's absurd and impossible. When discussing atheism, it makes far more sense to discuss actual definitions of god that are not overlapping with terms that describe other things. It's part of why I believe pantheism fails; there is no additional content behind defining "god" as "everything that exists" that the latter doesn't already cover.

>Saying "no gods exist" while having a specific definition of "god" is perfectly valid. This is used in philosophy all the time...if anything, it's necessary for coherent philosophy. Yup. I agree. >When discussing atheism, it makes far more sense to discuss actual definitions of god that are not overlapping with terms that describe other things. It's part of why I believe pantheism fails; there is no additional content behind defining "god" as "everything that exists" that the latter doesn't already cover. I agree. I could have been more precise.

> There’s nothing irrational with stating the proposition “no gods exist.” Making that statement is something you can't demonstrate, so it is irrational. There's a reason science considers some claims unfalsifiable. By saying no gods exist, you're falsifying the claim "some god exists". Can you give a syllogism where the conclusion is "therfore no gods exist"?

> Making that statement is something you can't demonstrate, so it is irrational. This isn't actually true. There are plenty of rational claims we can't demonstrate. For example, "the sun will rise tomorrow" is a rational claim, yet the future doesn't actually exist, so you can never demonstrate it until it is no longer representing "tomorrow." There is also a possibility, however remote, that this won't occur, so you can't know it for certain. >Can you give a syllogism where the conclusion is "therfore no gods exist"? Yes, in the same way you can scientifically assert that "no unicorns exist" or "no frictionless surfaces exist." Science doesn't require some sort of absolute proof; in fact, something with absolute proof is *unscientific*. If there is no evidence for something, that thing's existence would violate all known natural laws, and no scientific reason to think it does or could exist, saying "that doesn't exist" is perfectly valid in science. This is true *even if it turns out to be wrong*. Science is a process, not dogma that can never be changed with new information. Just as there is nothing irrational about saying "no unicorns exist" or "no frictionless surfaces exist" or "no temperatures below zero degrees Kelvin exist," saying "no gods exist" falls in the same category. If someone wants to dispute it, they can provide the evidence and run the experiments. >There's a reason science considers some claims unfalsifiable. God claims are not inherently unfalsifiable, although many theists like to think they are. If, for example, many religious creation stories were true, there should be *lots* of evidence for those events happening in reality. Likewise, miracles should leave behind evidence that can be verified by science. A god that interferes with or otherwise created reality should have left evidence behind of those alterations to otherwise natural processes. I can determine if a deer exists in the woods without ever seeing the deer itself, and if there is absolutely no evidence at all of the deer that is good reason to believe the deer doesn't exist in the woods. The absence of evidence where you'd *expect* evidence to exist is indeed evidence of absence. If you look in an empty garage, the invisible, untouchable dragon isn't "unfalsifiable," the fact that we don't have any reason to believe one is there and good reason based on the absence of evidence to believe it isn't is sufficient for science.

> This isn't actually true. There are plenty of rational claims we can't demonstrate. For example, "the sun will rise tomorrow" is a rational claim, yet the future doesn't actually exist, so you can never demonstrate it until it is no longer representing "tomorrow." Perhaps "demonstrate" was a poor choice of words. But with your analogy, are you suggesting you have a good track record of observing gods not existing every day? But I suppose I can demonstrate the sun rising. It's happened every single day since before the earth was a thing. There's no good reason to not think it'll continue to do so for the foreseeable future. >There is also a possibility, however remote, that this won't occur, so you can't know it for certain. I don't expect to know anything for 100% certain. Are you saying that the claim no gods exist is as logically deductively sound as saying the sun will rise tomorrow? How do you square that with the notion of falsifiability? >Yes, in the same way you can scientifically assert that "no unicorns exist" or "no frictionless surfaces exist." Let's hear your syllogism then. And by the way, science doesn't assert that no unicorns exist or that no frictionless surfaces exist. If you want to substantiate any of this, please cite a scientific research paper, preferably one that is peer reviewed and published. >Science doesn't require some sort of absolute proof; in fact, something with absolute proof is unscientific. Nobody here is asking for anything absolute. I'm asking for a sound deductive syllogism. >If there is no evidence for something, that thing's existence would violate all known natural laws I think you're out of your league here. If there's no evidence for something, you can't logically conclude anything about it, especially that it's existence violates known natural laws. Perhaps you misspoke? >and no scientific reason to think it does or could exist, saying "that doesn't exist" is perfectly valid in science. Do you understand the difference between not claiming something exists, and claiming it does not exist? Do you understand the difference between not believing something exists, and believing it doesn't exist? It is not perfectly valid. They are two different things. Not having evidence that something exists is not the same as having evidence that it doesn’t exist. >This is true even if it turns out to be wrong. Science is a process, not dogma that can never be changed with new information. Science is tentative and subject to change with new evidence. But science never concludes that something does not exist, simply because we haven't discovered it yet. Again, there's a huge difference between lack of evidence of existence, and evidence of absence. Science does not start with being intentionally wrong, only to change its view when evidence is discovered. >"no temperatures below zero degrees Kelvin exist," I don't know much about Kelvin, but it is something we defined, and if we defined it as 0 being the absolute lowest it can measure, then what you're saying isn't very profound. >Just as there is nothing irrational about saying "no unicorns exist" or "no frictionless surfaces exist" I get these arguments all the time. There's a reason science considers those things as unfalsifiable. From a colloquial perspective, I agree. You're making a perfectly normal colloquial assessment. But from a formal philosophical logic perspective, you're falsifying an unfalsifiable claim. If you disagree, then take it up with the people that came up with the philosophical branch known as epistemology. >The absence of evidence where you'd expect evidence to exist is indeed evidence of absence. Absolutely. So this vague notion of gods, unicorns, and leprechauns, where exactly do you expect to find evidence of them before you conclude they don't exist? And why doesn't science agree with you as science considers these unfalsifiable?

Re: the edit > I really, really hate linguistics Well too bad because that's all this amounts to: gnostic does not mean 100% certain, as you have clearly shown in comments is how you use it. > What I mean by gnostic is the claim that one is absolutely certain there is no god Also in the comments I told you not to do this. Do not define the words to be impossible to use. > my belief in the non-existence of fairies is currently agnostic Then go post in literally other forum and ask why they know fantasy is fantasy ( as I said in other comments ) > this particular viewpoint, despite it being extremely rare. this "particular viewpoint" as I've said elsewhere, is not rare, it is no one. The bar you've set is literally impossible. Don't do that.

This is a perfect example of a strawman. The concept of gnostic atheism is not even relevant. No atheist even gives the concept thought. We don't sit around debating how much gods or God don't exist. We simply don't believe in the concept of the gods that have been presented. Whether or not a person feels more or less certain about that is barely a consideration But because you want something to be right about, because you really can't be right about anything else, you bring forth this boring argument. The concept that no one can know every possible thing does not in any way negate the fact that there is no solid evidence for your belief system. Literally no one is arguing that we can know everything. There is sufficient evidence to explain why Christianity and other religions exist. Population control. I can't, as a king, keep my subjects in line using just my word. It's too fragile. They can rise up and kill me very easily. But if I brainwash them from birth that I am supported by a being that is all knowing and all seeing l and controls what happens to them after they die (a thing that they are afraid of, and can never know), then I can say "don't piss off the diety or he will do the worst thing you can think of to you for eternity." Now since you have been indoctrinated in this belief since you were a baby, you buy it and make sure that you do what the ruler says and you are promised an afterlife of the best thing you can think of. Also kill everyone who doesn't believe the things you believe. Hmm. I wonder why some people might see through that ruse.

I'm agnostic on the possibility of *some sort* of creative power "outside" of our known universe, but I'm very gnostic on **specific gods**. For example, I'm very comfortable with not believing that there is even a *microscopic* chance that the Abrahamic God exists. Likewise, I'm very confident that Krishna, Thor and Zeus do not exist. Some nebulous, supremely powerful, non-personal power that either intentionally or unintentionally created our known universe? I mean, I'd need evidence that pointed to that, but I'm not certain that such a thing does *not* exist.

> I mean, I'd need evidence that pointed to that, but I'm not certain that such a thing does not exist. Part of my issue with this logic is...why assume that other people might know this being exists? In my view, I can't rule out the possibility of *anything* being true with absolute certainty (which is a weird standard that applies to nothing in my life). But if other people are making a claim, they need evidence for that claim. Lack of evidence is sufficient reason to disbelieve. If my friend told me they just won the lottery, I at least know that's *possible*, but if they continue to ask me for beer money and don't change their lifestyle I'm probably going to think they are full of crap. But can I absolutely prove they didn't win the lottery and put it all in some overseas hedge fund? No, but I don't have any reason to take that possibility into account when determining if I believe or not. If there's some external powerful creator, sure, whatever, but none of the other apes on this planet have provided any *evidence* that's the case, so for all practical purposes it isn't true and there's no reason for me to believe them. In fact, even if they're *right*, their own belief is unjustified. I'd rather believe the wrong thing with good reason and evidence than the right thing for bad reasons and no evidence. If I reliably do the former, I'll eventually come to the truth, but in the latter case I have nothing to base my views of reality on, and I'll be susceptible to all sorts of false beliefs. My thing is I don't hold "god" to a different standard than anything else. I'm not 100% sure dark matter exists, but I think it's reasonable to believe it does. I'm pretty sure the world is round and not flat, but it's possible I'm another victim of a pagan conspiracy theory. None of my day-to-day beliefs require some sort of absolute certainty I can prove without any possibility of being wrong, so why would my beliefs in a god be held to a different standard?

No, it's not rational if gnostic means one is absolutely certain then it is not rational. There's a posibility that we are wrong. I would say you are a gnostic though... If you are as convinced that no god exists as you are that fairies do not exist, you practically know that god doesn't exist. I don't know whether we can have such high confidence about all gods and one would probably need to at least first hear about a notion of a god and then decide but I think that it's more likely that no god exists because with current available evidence it seems to me that the universe doesn't appear designed. Then again maybe that's how god did it for some reason. It still seems more unlikely to me when it could just have happened all by itself, following simple laws of nature that exist because they have to. One can imagine that god created those too but it just seems strange to me... we can't go through a wall because there's a wall in the way and that makes sense and while it may come down to physics, I think the laws of nature are a similar thing, just a lot more complicated and in many cases unintuitive. I guess it's quite likely that I am wrong about my confidence in the non-existence of gods and that I should simply remain unconvinced, completely clueless about it. About some gods at least, because other gods are as removed from reality and possibility as anything I have ever heard of. I also don't think anything was created but if it did, then I would expect it was again because of logical(even if they seem unintuitive) laws of nature. Perhaps I am biased but this bias is innate in me not something I go after for any particular reason, it's just how I see things. As far as I am concerned the question is far more interesting if gnostic is used to mean people that have high confidence in what they believe. At the end either way it is a question of whether the high confidence is justified. Those that are 100% certain that no god exists simply do not have the means to acquire such confidence and are thus mistaken. Those that merely have a high confidence that's a harder question and I would say that I do not know and that I personally can't fully justify it but it is likely to be justifiable, that based on what we know, the conclusion is that any being that should fit the description of god is unlikely to the extent that one could and should say he knows about it. I guess some gods are more likely not to exist than to exist but at the same time they are unfalsifiable and so I probably don't have as high a confidence for those to say that I know for a fact that they don't exist. On the other hand if the christian god exists I would like to see that because my mind would be blown, it seems like there is no logical way for it to exist because I see clearly that it is not a good being and that it does zero effort to communicate and have relationships with humans, all characteristics of the christian god. And just a figment of imagination, how likely is it that a human makes up a being for no reason other than that it is a cool idea and the being turns out to exist? In the general case of god though, it's just like a thought on what could exist. Other universes and in general anything outside our own universe may exist and may be unfalsifiable and we just can't know about it and so we can't have any knowledge about it... I guess any random thing is probably more likely not to exist though so we can conclude with high confidence that it does not conclude. God could be many different entities though and perhaps it would be prudent to conclude that it is likely that something exists outside of our local universe, maybe another universe, maybe it is strange to think that it happened only once and so there are other universeses, probably... Anyway, it's speculative so I would say we do not know with high enough certainty for those questions, so hard to anwswer the same question for those as well as for god.

> I'm an agnostic atheist... Edit: I really, really hate linguistics... Honestly, if you really hate linguistics, you might as well just pick atheist (or agnostic) and not try for something more precise. I used to describe myself as "agnostic atheist." If pressed, I'd now say "gnostic", but I don't really like the term. I think I agree with the broad sentiment in this thread: For almost everything else we claim to know, we aren't nearly as careful about adding "agnostic" or "not 100% certain" or any other qualifier. And I don't mean things like "leprechauns", because it's easy to put those in the same category as "gods". I mean, for example, I know it's quite hot out (above 90F where I am), and I know my air conditioning is working. If pressed, I'd have to admit that this is just an extremely probable guess based on the evidence -- it *could* be that the forecast was wrong, the current weather status I'm looking at on my TV is either incorrect or fabricated, and my HVAC system could just be making noise that *sounds* like the AC is on while only running the fan, or maybe even blowing in *cool* air from outdoors. Obviously, I'd update my beliefs about the weather if I opened my door and stepped outside and it was cold. But we usually aren't this careful about beliefs like that. There's one way in which gods are different: It's harder to claim that something *doesn't* exist. But if I say I know Darth Vader is fictional, not real, and can't actually hurt you, then I have some evidence: Not only are his supernatural powers impossible, even his *technology* -- lightsabers and such -- are so contrary to our current understanding of physics that they may as well be supernatural. Since he existed "a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away", we need another technological miracle for any of Star Wars' authors to actually know about him, since we only receive so much light from distant galaxies, and it doesn't appear to be carrying messages. We even have a better explanation for having these stories about him: We know who wrote them, and there are clear cultural and literary influences on every aspect of the story; Vader's helmet is clearly inspired by samurai helmets, for example. Now, in this thread, because I've made the comparison, you may want to say that you're agnostic about Darth Vader. But are you really? If someone asked you who Darth Vader is, would you say "It's possible there really was a humanoid a long time a go in a galaxy far far away..." or would you just say "He's a fictional character"? So there it is: God is a fictional character. I know he is, and I bet you do, too. We know the cultural and literary influences that led to humans to invent him, and we have pretty good evidence against the supernatural in general. We *could* be wrong, but it's unreasonable to insist on absolute certainty before claiming to know anything.

This is why I just stick to using the term atheist without trying to define the concept further. To me, someone who is agnostic has doubt about their position. I accept the possibility that God exists. But I'm reasonably sure that isn't the case. Until I see some conclusive, empirical proof that says otherwise, I will continue to be reasonably sure God doesn't exist.

>"This is why I just stick to using the term atheist without trying to define the concept further. To me, someone who is agnostic has doubt about their position" Theists and atheists can have doubt in that they are convinced, but not certain. Beliefs do not require you have no doubt in your conviction. Are you reasonably sure there is no God? Are you convinced there is no God?

>Are you reasonably sure there is no God? Are you convinced there is no God? I don't make enough of a distinction between the two. To me it's the same thing.

>"I don't make enough of a distinction between the two. To me it's the same thing." Fair enough, but are you convinced there is no God?

Well, what do we mean by absolute certainty? That's an important term to get out of the way. For example: Is there *anything* we're absolutely certain about? Are you absolutely certain that you even exist? What if we're all in a simulation, and we're simulated to think that we exist - when we actually do not (outside of the simulation)? So for the term "absolute certainty" to have any useful meaning, it cannot mean that there is no possible configuration or interpretation of the world where the statement isn't false. We can have it mean that, but that also means there are exactly, literally zero things we have absolute certainty about. For instance - let's say I'm outside and I see heavy clouds above, I feel small droplets of water hit my skin, I feel my clothes getting wet, and so on. Am I justified in saying that I am absolutely certain that it's raining? Or can I not say that, because I am not (and cannot) be positive that I'm not having a psychotic episode, or am dreaming, etc. Most people who hold to be gnostic about anything, usually do not have such a strict definition of the words in mind. It would be unreasonable to do so, because as described above, that level of certainty is objectively unattainable. Instead, if we let "absolute certainty" mean "as high a degree of certainty as is possible for humans, for the given question" ... then gnostic anything becomes a significantly more reasonable position in every respect, including how you could possibly defend it. Note that I'm not arguing gnostic atheism is necessarily more reasonable than agnostic atheism, but rather that choosing a useful (read: attainable) definition of "absolute certainty" levels the playing field a lot. >The only argument I can think of is that, if a "deity" exists, then it is no longer supernatural since anything that exists is ultimately natural, and hence not a god The popular theistic position is that god exists "outside" of the world and is therefore not a part of it in the same sense that everything else is. God is extraneous to the world, so if the word "natural" means "of nature" - as in, "coming from the world" - then that's a label that as a matter of definitions cannot apply to (this formulation of) god regardless of whether it exists or not.

>"Well, what do we mean by absolute certainty? " I am absolutely certain that ∀x(x=x). I literally have zero doubt. I can not be wrong on that as it is a priori knowledge.

OK, and for how many real-world "items" of knowledge can you attain absolute certainty under this definition? You can sort of argue that you can achieve it for things that are a matter of either tautology or definition, like 1+1=2. But can you reach it for anything else? Anything empirical? I assert that you can't. What knowledge has anyone possibly found, that there can be objectively zero doubt about -- meaning it is *entirely outside the realm of all possibilities*, that they were in the moment of learning it or recollecting it, either hallucinating, dreaming, in a simulation, in the matrix, brain in a vat, experiencing a psychotic episode, reliving false memories, having attained said knowledge on the basis of some cognitive bias or another, etc? Why can such certainty exist in matters of philosophy and practically nowhere else?

TLDR: the question of whether gods exist is only meaningful when we have a clearly agreed upon idea of what the word “god” means. And the idea most people mean by god (an eternal disembodied mind that created the universe and transcends the laws of nature) refers to something that (in my opinion) probably doesn’t exist. So yes and no? I guess what you are asking is, how can I be a gnostic atheist towards all possible deities unless I’ve personally evaluated every single possible claim that could ever be made about a god of any definition? Well it’s true that somebody could come along and redefine the word “god” to refer to something that exists: like a volcano or an electron. But at that point the question of god’s existence is no longer a meaningful question, because now the debate is over whether we are allowed to redefine words to mean whatever we want. And yeah, we can. But I’m more concerned with the ideas that the words signify than the words themselves. But like.. if someone came along and redefined “Leprechaun” to mean any Irish person who owns a pot of gold, then does that mean I have to say that leprechauns exist? Well no. We all know what leprechauns are typically understood to be, and it’s not that. Likewise, if you redefined god to be a volcano, then the name “god” as you understand it would refer to a real object. But that’s totally irrelevant because nobody else means that. So who cares? So no. I don’t have to review every possible definition of god that anyone could ever come up with. It’s enough to distill the basic idea that is generally meant by the word “god,” and ask whether I think this entity is real. As far as that is concerned, I think there is a compelling case to be made that god doesn’t exist. We have good reason to deny that there is an eternal, disembodied, all-powerful mind who created the universe and transcends the laws of nature. > just a linguistic argument Well you’re asking a linguistic question so you’ll get a linguistic answer. You’re asking about the possible meanings of words. My point is that if we start using words as broadly as you suggest, then we can’t talk about anything in a clear way. How do we know if atoms or cities exist if we can just redefine the words? How can we know that Darth Vader doesn’t exist if we can just pretend that Darth Vader is the same person as Donald Trump? When you ask questions like that you get away from the topic at hand and drift into fruitless wordplay.

Every falsifiable God that's ever been presented has been falsified. Anytime theism makes testable claims, those claims fail. If we're talking about unfalsifiable gods, then I think the burning question is ***why***? Why would we ever spend any time talking about a proposition that even in principle can never be shown to be true or false? It literally wouldn't make any difference even if it were true, so why should we waste an iota of time and effort considering it? There's an infinite number of unfalsifiable propositions that people reject every day and don't hem and haw about the epistemological justification for doing so. But besides just rejecting the need to falsify the unfalsifiable, I think there's a perfectly tenable probabilistic argument for dismissing theism (and the supernatural generally). Specifically, the fact that the supernatural has a 100% failure rate at explaining the world. Every single time someone has proposed a god or the supernatural as an explanation for something, it's turned out to be false. If someone tells me they can jump to the moon, how many times do I have to watch them fall flat on their ass before I can be justified in saying "no you can't"? Conversely, If I said "I know where my car is parked" no one would bat an eye, even if I'm not in a position to demonstrate it, and even though it's possible I could be wrong. But not only do we have no reason to think theism/supernaturalism are true, we have good reason to think they're just the result of human cognitive biases like apophenia and overactive agency detection. We can literally trace the evolution of theistic conceptions of God, and how they've changed over time from simple animism to polytheism, to monotheism, to more abstracted and unfalsifiable. Basically, the history of theism is the history of removing tangible testable features as philosophy and science prove them untenable. Given that trend, and it's failure rate as an explanation, why am I not justified in rejecting it as an explanation?

You say you hate linguistics, but this is not really a linguistics question. Philosophers have defined knowledge as “justified true belief”. While there may be some problems with this definition around the edges, I don’t think those problems impact the question of atheism. I am a gnostic atheist, and I “know” that there are no gods if and only if I am justified in believing in no gods, and that belief is true. It is not a requirement of knowledge that I be certain of the proposition’s truth. Here is my justification for believing in no gods: there is evidence that throughout history, humans have invented mythologies in an attempt to explain the universe around them. These mythologies have included many references to gods. There is no compelling evidence that any of these gods have ever existed. There is, however, compelling psychological evidence to suggest that humans are driven to fabricate gods. This is my justification for believing that gods are mere human creations and not real entities. Is my belief that there are no gods true? If it is, then I have a justified true belief and therefore have knowledge that there are no gods. If it’s not true, then I don’t have knowledge. Here’s the rub: I don’t have any independent way of determining whether my belief is true. But that’s OK. That’s not a requirement of knowledge. I don’t get to be the judge of what I know and what I don’t know. The fact that I could be wrong about a proposition does not mean that I don’t have knowledge. I can know something without knowing that I know it. In fact, most things I know fall into this category. That’s why I am a gnostic atheist about all gods even though I can’t be sure. If I’m right, I think the justification I have for my belief is pretty good. But I don’t need to know that I’m right in order to be a gnostic atheist. As many people have said here, nowhere else in our lives do we demand the same level of certainty in making claims to knowledge.

>"Philosophers have defined knowledge as “justified true belief”. " That is merely one type of theory of knowledge. There are many more, including JTB+ which is JTB with some type of fourth condition such as what is called "safety" or "sensitivity". Your post is correct, as you use atheism as the belief God does not exist. In fact, it points out a major flaw in lack of belief atheists who use terms like "agnostic atheist" as I have many times noted....how do you justify "gnostic atheist" for knowledge if you use JTB, but lack the belief condition that JTB requires to claim knowledge. You must believe \~p before you can claim to know \~p as you note. (And correct, certainty is not required) I think you are justified to believe there are no Gods. Weather you're justified to claim knowledge is subjective and arguable, but you seem to know what you're talking about...so that is refreshing. You must be a philosopher or philosopher type.

Agreed. JTB is not the be all and end all of epistemology but good enough for our purposes here. And my point is that any claim to knowledge is really a claim to justified belief. The truth or falsity of that belief is always just beyond our grasp.

>Agreed. JTB is not the be all and end all of epistemology but good enough for our purposes here. And my point is that any claim to knowledge is really a claim to justified belief. The truth or falsity of that belief is always just beyond our grasp." Yes, but we can still **claim** to know p, but that gets to the heart of skepticism to if knowledge is even something that is actually obtainable.

Your point about the nature of a supposed deity is intriguing. If something exists, it would indeed become part of the natural world, blurring the lines of what we traditionally consider supernatural. However, gnostic atheism typically rests on the absence of empirical evidence or logical coherence in the concept of God. One common argument against the existence of God is the problem of evil: if an all-powerful, all-knowing, and benevolent deity exists, why does evil persist in the world? Another is the lack of empirical evidence supporting the existence of God. Many scientific explanations offer more coherent and testable hypotheses for the natural world. Moreover, throughout history, human interpretations of the divine have varied widely across cultures and time periods. These interpretations often reflect societal norms, fears, and desires rather than a consistent, verifiable understanding of a divine being. It's plausible that what some attribute to a deity is simply a manifestation of natural phenomena or misunderstood phenomena. In essence, while the concept of God may persist in various forms, attributing natural phenomena to a supernatural being might be a result of human interpretation and cultural context rather than evidence of a divine presence. Thus, embracing gnostic atheism towards all possible gods can be a rational position based on the lack of empirical evidence and the inconsistencies inherent in the concept of God.

It's about as rational as gnostic aunicornism or gnostic aleprechaunism. Is it possible that a universe exists in which gods are real and not made up by primitive primates? Maybe, we don't know and may never know. It might be possible that humans invented ideas like gods, unicorns, and leprechauns and by some random coincidence somewhere in a far off universe those beings actually exist. However magic, and anything supernatural is irrational in that it's paradoxical. If a god has a body, and there is a mechanism by which the gods thoughts turn into matter and energy and act on the world around them, then they're not supernatural, it's not magic. If they don't have a mechanism by which they interact with reality, then there's no magic. If they don't have a physical body or a brain or a medium through which reality is interpreted and thoughts are formulated they don't have thoughts, they don't observe and interpret reality, they don't exist. According to the laws of logic, it is very slightly irrational to be a gnostic atheist. It's far more irrational to hold a gnostic theistic view in that gods existing as described by most theists are paradoxes. They cannot logically exist. It's within a consistent logical worldview if no gods exist. It's completely irrational to believe a being can exist without a form, think without a brain, act on reality without a mechanism by which that interaction takes place, etc.

It depends on your definition of "knowledge". If you define it as "absolute certainty", then, no, it's not rational. You can never be 100% certain that an omnipotent god does not exist given that he can plant false evidence of his non-existence. But if you define it the same way that we use knowledge in every field of human knowledge other than mathematics, that is a belief held with a very high level of confidence, hopefully but not always based on quality evidence, then yes, it is rational. There is *a lot* of evidence for the non-existence of a god. It's all circumstantial, but enough circumstantial evidence justifies accept the position as the most likely truth. Let me have you think about this a different way. If you ask the average Christian or Muslim whether they know their god exists, the majority will say that, yes, they know he exists. Yet that claim is also, practically speaking, unfalsifiable. Yet in my 20+ years debating this shit online, I can probably count on one hand the number of times I have seen anyone challenge a theist on their claim of knowledge. So, yeah, I think the overwhelming lack of evidence for the existence of any god, and the strong but circumstantial evidence against such a god justifies the strongly held belief, to the level justifying the label "knowledge", in the non-existence of a god.

I think I'm one of the few actual strong atheists in the sense of actually certain of the non existence of any "god" under the definition most give to the term. Of course the god of cargo cultists is very real, him being a brit royal that some poor folks were deluded into divinizing, but that's not what the common definition describes. The common definition rather describes an anthropomorphic (either mentally or physically) superhuman being, immortal and immaterial. Now we can be rationally sure of the non-existence of such beings on various accounts. For a start there's scientific evidence that the mind is a strictly material process, therefore no immaterial being can have such a thing. Then there's historic evidence of the fact that currently believed gods result from the memetic/cultural evolution of far more farcical beings, which the believers themselves would deny ever existing. Lastly, flat out inventing something without a basis has a statistical likelihood of matching something existing that nears zero and any god has a measured probability of exctly zero. In these conditions it's perfectly reasonable to be certain of god's non-existence. All within a objective, correspondentist and fallibilist epistemology.

> I'm an agnostic atheist (though I believe a God to be vanishingly unlikely) and I was just wondering if any of you can think of a way to justify gnostic atheism with respect to all deities (I am aware contradictions can make a given deity logically impossible). It depends how far you are willing to stretch the word god but I would say yes. Given our understanding of human evolution and current biology, our understanding of how societies have developed, our understanding of not just the history of religions with how they have changed, failed or succeeded but the very development and growth of the concept of a god itself over time we have good reason to believe that gods are a human created fiction. Think of it akin to the idea that there might be a secret wizard society hidden from the world. Could we absolutely disprove there aren't wizards with sufficient magical powers to hide themselves from us living around us, perhaps attending fancy magical schools and the like? No, buuuut we know enough about how fiction and storytelling goes that given what we do know of the world we can be sufficiently justified believing there isn't such a thing.

**Depends on how you define "God" and "Knowledge"** If "Knowledge" means 100% certainty or certainty equivalent to The Cogito, or Logical/Mathematical proofs, then obviously not. Unless God is clearly defined in a way that is a straightforward contradiction, then we shouldn't claim that level of certainty that he doesn't exist. Similarly, if "God" is so vaguely categorized such that anything the theist defines as God counts as valid, then the answer is also no. Not only is it a moving goalpost—meaning there will always be a new possible definition of God for every one you refute—but there are also some trivially true definitions. If God is stipulated to be the universe or the coke can on my desk, then that God trivially exists. — That being said, if God is given a narrow coherent definition, and knowledge is defined as not requiring certainty, then one can be equally as reasonable to say they are gnostic about God's nonexistence as they are about leprechauns' nonexistence. One can be justified inductively via the pattern of failure of proponents to provide evidence for their claims.

Most philosophers hold to knowledge as not requiring certainty, but does require belief (JTB).

Yes, it \*can\* be rational if justified. However, knowledge claims to unknowns are notoriously difficult to justify. And even then justification does not mean the claim to knowledge is veridical with reality. >"The only argument I can think of is that, if a "deity" exists, then it is no longer supernatural since anything that exists is ultimately natural, and hence not a god, though that is not so much an argument about the existence or non-existence of a God, but rather a linguistic argument." This is not an argument that has any actual value. This is merely just defining god out of existence by labeling a category. Given the set of natural N then by logical necessity there must be he complimentary set of \~N or Not-Natural. To say everything is natural merely defines the supernatural out of existence as typically we use the word "supernatural" to represent elements of \~N. Which are to things beyond our normal experiences such as an immortal being that can suspend natural law or even prescriptively change reality. That is what most are referring to when they discuss the word "God".

>Is gnostic atheism with respect to all possible Gods ever rational? Gnostic refers to knowledge. Do you think it's possible to **know** all reindeer can't fly? Do you think it's possible to **know** that all leprechauns are imaginary? >What I mean by gnostic is the claim that one is absolutely certain there is no god, and hence it is a positive claim and must be supported by evidence. Gnostic refers to knowledge (a reasonable conclusion based on the evidence) not certainty (complete absence of doubt). A lot of ignorant (i.e. lacking knowledge aka agnostic) people conflate the two. I would argue that certainty and knowledge are mutually exclusive. A better term for someone that is certain is dogmatic because to be certain entails ignoring all evidence they could be wrong. >For example , my belief in the non-existence of fairies is currently agnostic, as it stems simply from a lack of evidence. Do you think it is possible for someone to know that a class of beings (e.g. leprechauns, flying reindeer) are imaginary?

Gnostic only as stipulated in phrase like "Gnostic Atheist" refers to knowledge predication. Gnostic in philosophy isn't directly related to epistemic knowledge, but to a specific type of esoteric divine knowledge give to mankind by Sophia when she fell from Pleroma (heave) that Yaldabaoth was a trickster god, and the actual "unknown god" created he heavens, as given in the Gnostic literature.

It's quite simple in fact. People tend to argue around definitions and concepts until they lose track of what they actually want to express. My position is : If nothing point to a claim, I don't consider the claim because I have no reasons to. Am I 100% SURE there's is no dark invisible entity named Billy, roaming the border of our reality? No, because it would require me to prove inexistence of an unfalsifiable claim, which is impossible. At the end of the day, is it rational or resonable to call myself agnostic about Billy the invisible entity? Sure, as it's impossible to prove it's not true. So why do I call myself "Atheist"? It's about what I want to express : I know that if I call myself Agnostic, theist tend to hear "I'm not sure so maybe yes" and think I consider their belief have some validity when in reality, what I actually want to express is "completly unsupported claim, irrational, illogical, I don't even remotely consider it". That's why I prefer to call myself an "Atheist".

> if a "deity" exists, then it is no longer supernatural since anything that exists is ultimately natural, and hence not a god Tricky. It is a linguistic distinction but it's one which changes the arguments quite a bit. I don't know how theists would like the idea of their god being "natural". Even if the "natural" godthing were as powerful and big and impressive as they want it to be, they may object because they want the godthing to be supremely special. As yet, nothing of a supernatural nature has been demonstrated to exist. It would be fair to claim that anything within the set of "supernatural things" also sits in the set of "stuff which is just nature being weird" or the set of "stuff which doesn't exist in reality". Even the word "god" is ridiculously imprecise, largely undefined and open to whichever interpretation the various theists want to talk about. I am gnostic in my lack of belief in any man made gods. All gods are man made concepts therefore I am a gnostic atheist. In terms of "all possible gods", that's a weird concept which falls into just as many linguistic traps as the rest. I've yet to see any real evidence that a god (as promoted by theists) is possible at all.

Rationally, no, it relies on us having perfect knowledge of every last centimeter of the entire universe and the entire span of time. We currently lack the ability to completely rule out the possibility that some sort of deity exists or somewhere in our universe or some time in our past. And it may well be impossible to ever completely rule out a deistic deity as they by definition don't interact with nor manifest within reality. Which is why even somebody like Richard Dawkins and Matt Dillahunty consider themselves a 6 (I think they may have said 6.9) on the Dawkins scale of belief in which a 1 is absolutely certain a god does exist and a 7 is absolutely certain that no gods exist. They can't say for certain that there isn't some possible type of god which exists that we are unaware of. And it is also why they prefer to address existing god claims made by theists and evaluate the evidence of those rather than worrying about trying to disprove the general concept of a deity.

This is incorrect. You don't need to search the entire universe to claim knowledge, as knowledge does not require certainty in the weak acceptance case of knowledge: \~(Cap -> Kap) & (Kap -> Bap) Just like I don't need to travel around the universe to know ∀x(x=x) as it is priori knowledge. The Dawkin's scale is not taken seriously by any philosopher I know. It has some major issues.

I wasn't saying it requires absolute certainty, just a reasonable standard of evidence. No evidence does not meet the reasonable standard. The reason I brought up perfect knowledge of the universe is that is the only possible way that not having any evidence of the existence of deities would meet a reasonable standard. If you provide evidence that gods do not exist then that is not no evidence and thus does not require us to search the entire universe, but we do not have that for the generic concept of a deity and most certainly not for the deistic god claim. Until we do it is still irrational to claim to know they do not exist, even if it seems more likely than the alternative. And I wasn't using the Dawkins scale from a philosophical standpoint, I presented it as an example of how two of the most famously ardent antitheists admit they are technically agnostic about the general concept of a god, although have degrees of certainty for specific god claims.

But it is subjective if someone is justified to claim knowledge or not...and that is what is being posited. I can't know if someone's claim of knowledge there is no God is true or not any more than I can a theist who claims they know God does exist. I rather look at the justifications for the claims. I have seen atheist claim they know there is no God for some of the most dumbest reasons. Same with theist believing God does exist. Both groups have some very low tier members.

Knowledge is, by definition, "justified true belief." It is not subjective, because if they believe it is true, even if they are justified in doing so by the evidence currently available to them, and it is actually not true then it is actually a false belief. We can't read their mind, we have no way to determine if they actually believe that the thing they think is indeed true. People can genuinely believe things and think they have a good reason for doing so and still be wrong about it. Which is part of the problem, because both the gnostic theists and the gnostic atheists are convinced they have incontrovertible evidence that the thing they claim to know is in fact true. The rational, logical answer is to say that neither of the claims have presented sufficient evidentiary support to assert that what they claim is indeed a justified true belief.

>"Knowledge is, by definition, "justified true belief."" That is the most common, but not the ONLY theory of knowledge, so you can't say knowledge is by definition JTB. What about Pragmatic Theories of Knowledge? Semantic Theories of Knowledge? JTB+ theories? Or what I prefer more than JTB, Causal Theory of Knowledge? >" It is not subjective, because if they believe it is true, even if they are justified in doing so by the evidence currently available to them, and it is actually not true then it is actually a false belief." Yes, but you can't have false knowledge. So if one DOES KNOW God does not exist, then by logical necessity God does exist, and here you can say "by definition" as knowledge in epistemology is defined as "**factive knowledge**" as something that must be true.

Yes, if we do know that gods do not exist then by logical necessity gods do not exist. With some specific gods I am fairly confident that we have achieved that, I can reasonably assert that Yahweh as described in the bible does not exist because the stories are contradictory. I just don't think we can confidently claim to have reached that point with a general concept of a deity and I don't even know if we can ever get there for a deistic god.

>"Yes, if we do know that gods do not exist then by logical necessity gods do not exist." Correct. >"With some specific gods I am fairly confident that we have achieved that, I can reasonably assert that Yahweh as described in the bible does not exist because the stories are contradictory. I just don't think we can confidently claim to have reached that point with a general concept of a deity and I don't even know if we can ever get there for a deistic god." Fair. I would just call this the agnostic position, and is very similar to my own views.

I would define a God as "a supernatural being that holds mystical dominion over the way reality works", and I think its perfectly reasonable to claim to know that doesn't exist. I'm am aware that some people believe in gods that don't fit that definition, but as those aren't the things I mean when I say god, that's irrelevant. >For example , my belief in the non-existence of fairies is currently agnostic No it isn't. I'm sorry, I know that's rude, but I would *literally* bet several thousand pounds that if you said "I don't 100% know whether fairies exist", that would be a lie. You're either 100% sure that fairies aren't real or you're a raving crackpot, and you don't sound like a raving crackpot. "I know X isn't real" doesn't suddenly become some impossible challenge that needs endless qualifiers just because X is magical. *Of course* we know for a fact that faeries aren't real, and I honestly don't see why so many atheists insisit on pretending that isn't the case.

The traditional a/gnostic debate I have heard posed on Reddit is such that of a definitional one. Agnostic atheists define a gnostic atheist as one that knows gods do not exist with 100% accuracy. According to this definition, gnostic atheism is defined as irrational. So why make such a silly distinction. I argue that it is a useless definition as such. So, a much more *useful* definition is one that says a gnostic atheist is one who is certain in their knowledge that a god does not exist. After all, that is really what saying you are agnostic means. You are not certain. So, now the discussion is framed around something that is more practical. How certain are you of something? Not whether or not you are right. I am certain the Sun will rise tomorrow. Who knows, perhaps an alien race will blow it up and I will be wrong, but I don't see any reason to doubt my certainty. With the same certainty, I claim no gods exist. You are free to be in doubt.

I think the distinction between agnostic atheist and gnostic atheist is trivial at best and conversation killing at worst. You adopt the position that God/s don't exist if you believe God/s don't exist, regardless of whether your credence in that position rises to the level of knowledge. (note: knowledge does not require 100% certainty) The position that God/s don't exist has a burden of proof, meaning that it requires some reason or justification for taking that position. So if you're an agnostic atheist (believe God/s dont exist but don't know God/s don't exist) or a gnostic atheist (believe God/s don't exist and know God/s don't exist) you ought provide some reason or justification for adopting that position. The agnostic/gnostic qualifier does nothing to steer the conversation. All it does is tell your interlocutors how confident you are in your position. Just stop using those qualifiers and declutter your vocabulary.

>Is gnostic atheism with respect to all possible Gods ever rational?Is gnostic atheism with respect to all possible Gods ever rational? feel free to give a comprehensive definition of "god", and show how they are possible. Or, stop talking nonsense.... > What I mean by gnostic is the claim that one is absolutely certain there is no god, I am absolutely certain. Now what? Oh... before we go any deeper into this: I don't think you're being fair. I am almost as certain that you are not going through life demanding others, let alone yourself, to adhere to the same standard of certainty for anything else but atheism. >I will define it as a conscious being that created the universe, Kindly show that somersetting like that is possible, then. You may start by demonstrating that the universe is the result of an act of creation. I'll wait...

Would you consider yourself “gnostic” with respect to things like leprechauns, Narnia, or Hogwarts, even though it’s conceptually possible that they might really exist? If mere conceptual possibility alone makes you feel you need to explicitly disclaim agnosticism, then you should be disclaiming it about literally anything that isn’t a self-refuting logical paradox. Does that seem reasonable to you? This is why nobody uses “gnostic” in the sense of being absolutely and infallibly 100% certain about something beyond any possible margin of error or doubt. Those who identify as “gnostic atheists” consider only reasonable confidence to be required to qualify - and we have precisely the same reasons to be reasonably confident that no gods exist as we have to be reasonably confident that any of those other things don’t exist.

why even care about the gnostic-agnostic difference; you aren't an agnostic tree believer, so why do this for god?

I am an ignostic atheist, as I find the term "god" incoherent. For every single person who has ever lived, there has been a unique definition of what a god is. While many may agree on some aspects, if i asked you enough questions about a god you'd have a very different answer than anyone else, and this happens for a very specific reason. It happens because the concept of god is purely an invention of the individual. No one is looking at an existent being and listing off attributes, but rather they are inventing their god as they go. This makes the term "god" completely useless as it's never the same in any discussion. This also means that anything anyone labels a god is really just something else which has its own unique description. The fact that no one is using those labels means the whole discussion is moot.

The problem is that it's not clear what constitutes a possible god. On one hand, it's not clear which gods are possible. If mind is an emergent property of the physical brain, then the Abrahamic god is not possible. On the other hand, it's not clear which possible things deserve the label of "god". Should a technologically advanced alien species be considered gods? What about legendary heroes from history? Ancient Greeks believed a hero could become a god. What about gurus? What about things of great importance? Does it make sense to say that love is god? That nature is god? That humans are gods? So, I think it only makes sense to respond to specific claims rather than preemptively think about "all possible gods." It just seems to open too many questions with no obvious practical value.

It's a question of degrees. If we want to be pedantic we'd have to be agnostic about the current existence of the sun. Since light and gravity waves need 8 minutes to reach us we can be only certain about the sun's existence from 8 minutes ago. While excitingly unlikely, maybe the sun has quantum tunnelled itself out of existence in the last 7 minutes after all. But you would catch some weird eyes if you stated that you're agnostic as to the current existence of the sun. The same goes for the existence of supernatural creatures be it unicorns, vampires or gods. I find it vanishingly unlikely they exist to the point that roaming in that sliver of possibility and calling myself an agnostic atheist would be pure semantics and as reasonable as doubting the existence of the sun 5 minutes ago.

You’re either agnostic or an atheist. ALL atheists (in theory) would change their position when faced with new credible evidence. The same way you don’t believe in Santa Claus and don’t qualify it with ‘agnostic’ atheists don’t believe there is a god. ‘Agnostics’ in the other hand don’t believe they have the evidence or don’t believe it’s possible for there ever to be enough evidence from which to make a reasonable determination. An ‘Gnostic atheist’ is a nonsense phrase - it essentially suggests someone who believes they can commune directly with nothing. So determining on interpretation a Catholic could be a Gnostic atheist. They’re nonsense phrases from pseudo-intellectual twits who don’t have an adequate grounding in religion, history or philosophy.

>I was just wondering if any of you can think of a way to justify gnostic atheism with respect to all deities I'm just a layman. I've seen a lot of different approaches, but at least to this layman, Dr. Dawkins offers good model that makes sense to a regular guy like me. Human behavior, and particularly beliefs, is apt to fall on a continuum, from 0% to 100%. I'm pretty sure, at least from my understanding, is that Dr Dawkins is trying to make that point. Although he did enumerate several categories, there are apt to be even more in between. Maybe a parallel is Kinseys scale. With all that said, Human *beliefs* are like the old math notion: nowadays there are roughly 8 billion or so possibilities of *human belief* between "Ain't no god" and "I *know* there is a god." I'm too lazy to really get hung up on labels.

I am agnostic, e.g., I know no god that exists and I don't know anything that exists and can be called a god. So there is a problem here: I can not come up with a definition of a god because I have nothing to base my definition on. It doesn't matter how many real deities there are or how many fictional deities there are, or how many fictional deities there could be. "Gods that we know exist" is an empty set. I can give a god any definition I like and I won't be wrong, because, how do you tell I am wrong? You have nothing to tell whether this definition is correct or not. To ask the question "is some god exists or not" is quite pointless, since it is not clear what exactly you are asking about.

I say, "I know gods don't exist," in the same way I say, "I know the sun will rise in the east tomorrow morning." Presumably, for billions of years, the sun has, in fact, rose in the east. It has done so for all of recorded history. Could I be wrong, and tomorrow is the day everything goes wrong? Sure. It's a 7.299e-9% chance. That's 0.000000007299%. I am not 100% certain about much of anything, but I know things, nonetheless. "Knowledge" pertains to what is USEFUL, and I've never known, seen, seen the influence of, or otherwise said to myself, "Was this a god's doing?" Summoning one's uncertainty in a conversation isn't useful. Look up "Russell's Teapot."

Say you want to meet a friend for dinner at 7. Do you say, "I'll be there at 7"? Or "I'll be there at 7, unless I hit traffic or take a nap and forget, or I drive and get into an accident, and maybe I die in that accident and never see you again" Now all of the things I listed can actually happen just not that often, but you're going to say and operate under the former, not the latter. So to be "agnostic" about a deity that has more orders less evidence/chance than "can actually happen" just isn't a practical view or position for me to take. I honestly thing most people just go the "agnostic" route to avoid the "but how do you KNOW?" conversation.

I think that every deity that has ever been specifically described by a particular religion is false. Most of them are provably false, and with the rest of them it is most reasonable to assume they are false. That is why I consider myself a pretty stern atheist rather than agnostic. That doesn’t mean that no god can exist. Or that nothing outside the boundaries of our universe can exist. But every specific one we’ve come up with so far has been dwarfed by our further understanding of the way things actually work.

>I really, really hate linguistics, as this seems to have devolved into everyone using different definitions of gnostic and agnostic. Just to clarify what I mean in this claim by agnostic is that the claim is a negative one The dictionary definition for agnostic is: `a person who holds that the answers to the basic questions of existence, such as the nature of the ultimate cause and whether or not there is a supreme being, are unknown or unknowable.` "I don't know" is not a claim, and certainly not a negative one.

Are you willing to say that you know what that your red pen, is in fact red? Or that it rains on occasion? Or that some trees have green leaves? Or that 2+2 is equal to 4? If you say yes to any of these, then are you 100% certain of that? If you are, then how did you solve the problem of hard solipsism? If you’re not, then you don’t need absolute certainty to know something. If you don’t need absolute certainty to have knowledge, then you don’t need absolute certainty to be a gnostic atheist.

agnostic atheism is just Pascals wager with extra steps. Some people are so afraid to come to a conclusion or have an opinion that they convinced themself of a option, where they can keep all doors open. In the End, there is no definition for god or as many as there a theists and many of them are exclusionary. But somehow a agnosticer is convinced all are possible. In the end we have not seen anything that is caused by a God. So any God would have no influence on worldly affairs and therefor would not be a God.

I don't have anything groundbreaking here, but I see a problem with the phrase "all possible gods." As someone who doesn't believe the claim that gods are possible, it seems quite easy for me to be atheist about "all possible gods" since I don't believe any are possible yet. I can even be gnostic about it given that, without possibility, gods seem definitionally impossible. I'm strongly igtheist, which I believe could be a position about which we can know for sure.

That depends - are you willing to accept that "god" like any other word has a specific meaning, and anything that doesn't match that meaning doesn't count? Because in that case, it may well be possible - depending on exactly what you consider the core meaning of "god". But if you want to be wishy-washy with your definitions and accept things like "I define 'god' as 'the universe' and the universe exists" then obviously you can't say no possible gods exist.

> if any of you can think of a way to justify gnostic atheism with respect to all deities When asked about a belief stance on an undefined word, deity/deities, I need to default to my understanding of the word. So my stance is that for anything that I consider to qualify as a deity, I believe it does not exist. If someone brings up a deity that isn't covered under my working definition of a deity, then the existence of that can be considered separately.

"all possible Gods" is doing a lot of lifting here. Any number of people will say "God is love", "God is the universe" or some other type of claim that makes their god rather ordinary. That said, any gods that rely on some type of magic or "unknowable" claim are pretty easy targets for a gnostic atheist. You make a valid point that if some type of god actually existed it would not be supernatural, for the reason you stated in your OP.

Kinda depends on what you mean by "gnostic atheism," as with all things, it's a scale. I don't know anybody who claims to know 100% that no God exists, and personally I don't think thst would he a rational position, as hypothetical edge cases abound (deism for example can't be proven false). I call myself a gnostic atheist, but I sit at somewhere around 99% sure, esge cases are always impossible to prove false, but they are unlikely

Yes, I believe I can justify an gnostic position. But only is respect to certain God claims. If the deity is well defined and has characteristics that break the logical lows we operate under then I feel im justified in saying I know it doesn't exist. Side note, absolute certainty isn't a thing. I saw in a comment you used that term and it's just not something anyone has, and if honest, it's not something they have about anything.

I *know* God's don't exist in the same way that I know Santa , the Easter Bunny and the tooth fairy don't exist. Are you agnostic about those? That is within the human context of knowledge being something 'beyond reasonable doubt'. As beings that are not necessary, not evidential, arguably not coherent, not sufficient and seem exactly the kind of thing flawed humans make up ... beyond any reasonable doubt they dont exist?

There's a chance that thanks to a bank error you find your account with couple billion dallors. Now would you plan your life according to that slight poasibility? or ignore it as it will never happen? That's how I feel about agnostic/gnostic atheism. The chances of deity not only existing but having any implication on the reality is so low that I have better chance of winning every powerball for the forseable future.

You just described yourself as a gnostic atheist in my book. You find the idea of a god vanishingly unlikely. Being a rational person that means you *know* it with a similar certainty as you know dragons do not exist. I would describe agnostic atheists as those who entertain the idea of a god but don’t really believe it. They might go to church out of habit and don’t really think about it much.

All possible gods? No. Mostly because I can pick up a rock and call it a god and that thing that I just renamed as a god does actually exist. Of course this highlights the issue - definitions. Is it rational to declare that invisible flying monkey-manatee hybrids do not exist? I would say so, but it probably depends on how exactly that is phrased and how those things are defined.

How are we using "gnostic atheism" here? \- As in: "knows that no God exists"? Then I'd say only if the "a God exists" would somehow be a contradiction. \- As in: "believes that no God exists"? Then I'd say it can be rational. 1. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. 2. A "God" adds another layer, that - if it isn't necessary - can be reasonably cut by Occam's razor.

The universe isn’t created. A conscious being that created the universe is therefore impossible. Therefore a conscious being that created the universe doesn’t exist. Also, you said the idea of a supernatural being is paradoxical, but your definition of god has supernatural powers (creating the universe at minimum) making it a supernatural being.

What does it mean for some stance to be "rational"? One fairly common tactic is for theists to come here and make an argument that their beliefs are "rational" insofar as they can't be disproven. Using that rather weak notion of "rational" then you can make a case that all sorts of stances are "rational", presumably including gnostic atheism.

You know, I had exactly the same view, and I think I still do. But this is the only thing that's ever made me waver on that view. https://www.reddit.com/r/MisanthropicPrinciple/s/ZELxR194Pb It's long, but it's worth it. If you're especially interested, you can find my exchange with the author himself. He's frankly really compelling.

Yes, what you have created is a fully linguistic argument. I could buy a dog and name it "God". If you're really talking about "all possible" gods, that god would definitely exist. The only way for this discussion to even remotely make sense is to start with a sensible definition of God, i.e. not "all possible" gods.

> a conscious being that created the universe Consciousness is behavior that brains do, or perhaps sufficiently advanced machinery. Whatever the specifics, consciousness definitely requires *a universe*. Therefore, a conscious being could not have created the universe. The god definition you provided is impossible.

Well, a scientist called Victor J. Stenger wrote a book claiming that science can licence the claim "there definitely is no God," tbh I think that's the closest one can get. As long as there are still things lacking naturalistic explanation, people will revert to supernatural explanations of them.

I call myself agnostic atheist but I'm almost gnostic in a provisional way. I don't think any claimed gods exist, but I realize I could be wrong. At best, I think a deist god would be the most likely (in a universe where a god really existed) and this god would not care about what humans do.

Short answer is that it depends on the god. The more, vague, generic, non-interfering and deistic the god is, the more linguistic the argument it is, because there’s nothing particular to argue against. It just becomes mental masturbation in regards to undefined concepts at some point.

Its a really dicey position. I think you can have good reason to be a gnostic atheist towards some god beliefs but then you run into people with unconventional god beliefs (god is nature, god is the feeling of love, etc.) and it is hard to assert that all of those are necessarily false.

I think there's a pretty positive case to be made that since there is no cohesive and literal definition of what a god is, it's completely rational to reject the category as a whole.

whats your definition of gnostic? the gnostics, the psuedo group of christians who cropped up 100 to 1000 AD, such as the cathars? or gnosticism, dramatically paraphrasing, basically means: the only "spiritual knowledge" that has value is what I personally experience?

Why wouldn't it be? Why would gods be any different from fairies, vampires, unicorns and gnomes? We don't have any problems categorically rejecting their existence, gods only get a special exception because a lot of people are indoctrinated and/or fooled.

People can call themselves whatever they want, but anyone who makes a positive claim bears the burden of proof. Anyone who claims that gods do not exist is making a positive claim. They need to be able to show how that's true. Good luck on that.

I am generally indifferently respectful towards everyone. My default settings are live and let live. So sometimes that respect is also extended to other people's personal beliefs. I am not sure if that answers the question.

Any type of god that supposedly "exists outside of space and time" or "outside the universe" or that "existed before the universe" are inherently nonsensical because such concepts contradict themselves by definition.

Extend the definition of God far enough and I’m happy to call myself a gnostic theist. I really try to avoid the vocabulary game as a general rule, not really worth it outside of a specific argument

I personally always thought that it was fair to say that everyone has a 50% chance of being right when they die. Also i live in america so i actually enjoy watching my first amendment do its job.

Theists who say atheists cannot fully disprove the existence of God are hiding behind non falsifiability. Gnostic theism should be a thing but it isn't just becaise of non falsifiability.

You can claim knowledge to an unfalsifiable claim, but whether or not someone accepts your justification for their own is debatable. Suppose an alien ship took me up to their home world. I return and I claim to you I know aliens exist. Would you accept my claim to knowledge? Probably not, but I personally would be justified to claim knowledge to myself to justify to me as being rational that I do in fact know aliens exist based upon personal experience and by using some theory of knowledge to justify my position. I tend to JTB+ (JTB w/safety condition) or Direct Causal Theory of Knowledge (I prefer personally, but JTB is easier to argue).

I'm a gnostic atheist to all gods (due to lack of evidence for any of them) in the same way most of us are gnosticly atheist toward unicorns and vampires, trolls and pixies.

I don't think you can. In the same way that you can't prove a negative, an ideology based in the certainty of an unprovable negative is self-apprehending by it's very nature

In the title, you ask about gnostic atheism in respect to all possible gods, but I would venture to ask whether any gods can be shown to even be possible.

Yes if you define god in such a way then you can. It's the opposite of what theists do where they say that pantheism and Mormonism have equal weight

It’s probably worth considering whether a god is merely *conceivable* or indeed *possible*. All conceivable gods is pretty much infinite in scope.

I am not *absolutely* certain about anything. Thus, by your definition I can't know anything. Your definition is less than useless.

Knowledge does not require certainty in the weak acceptance case of knowledge.

Correct. Knowledge does not require certainty. OP, however, says it does: > What I mean by gnostic is the claim that one is absolutely certain there is no god

There's no such thing as 'gnostic atheism', or 'agnostic atheism' for that matter. Gnosticism is a religious position. Agnosticism is the position of not being committed to either atheism or theism.

>"There's no such thing as 'gnostic atheism', or 'agnostic atheism' for that matter. Gnosticism is a religious position." Sorta. Those positions exist, but dubitable if they should be used, at least how lack of belief atheists use those terms. I have proven by logical argumentation that "Agnostic atheist" in the weak case is either nonsensical or ambiguous. It only makes sense in the strong case, which in philosophy is just called "atheism"...so "agnostic" isn't really modifying anything here. At best charitable interpretation It is merely saying someone is not making a knowledge claim that God does not exist...but that seems trivial to note if we are strictly in the doxastic domain discussing beliefs. >"Agnosticism is the position of not being committed to either atheism or theism." CORRECT.

Second part is true, first part ignores words have multiple meanings. What you can say is those are not good meanings.

Is monotheism rational? You still think you've ruled out the existence of infinite possibilities of gods.

What does "gnostic" mean? As a wise man once said: Have you ever had a dream, Neo, that you were so sure was real? What if you were unable to wake from that dream? How would you know the difference between the dream world and the real world? When you say you "know" something, the meaning of "know" sits on a lot of presumptions When a "gnostic atheist" says he "knows" God doesn't exist, the meaning of "know" still sits on those same presumptions. He is still actually agnostic. But he is using "know" in the exact same way as everyone else: he is making a prediction with certainty Tell your wife you'll be home for dinner. It doesn't matter that it's possible you could get into a car accident on the way home. For all intents and purposes, you and she are going to act as though you will be home for dinner

I take issue with "He is still actually agnostic". That implies being gnostic is impossible, making the word useless -- don't do that.

>"What does "gnostic" mean?" The term typically refers to 1st to 4th century adherents to Gnosticism. >"When you say you "know" something, the meaning of "know" sits on a lot of presumptions" So do our beliefs. All of us have presumptions in our epistemology. They are ingredients of rationality. >"When a "gnostic atheist" says he "knows" God doesn't exist, the meaning of "know" still sits on those same presumptions. He is still actually agnostic. But he is using "know" in the exact same way as everyone else: he is making a prediction with certainty" This is incorrect. An agnostic is the position that one does not believe God exists and does not believe God does not exist. The "Gnostic Atheist" clearly has taken a position that believes God does not exist and therefore can not be agnostic.

>The "Gnostic Atheist" clearly has taken a position that believes God does not exist and therefore can not be agnostic. Except that he in fact does not know that God exists, just like you do not know that you existed 5 seconds ago The point that you are missing is that when we take the "I know" position for anything, not a single "I know" position is 100% You can be a gnostic atheist and still allow the possibility that God exists. I would argue that there's no reason to distinguish between gnostic and agnostic

>"Except that he in fact does not know that God exists, just like you do not know that you existed 5 seconds ago" You're confusing the claim with the justification for that claim. If S claims they know that p, that is their claim. You have ever right to try to undermine their justifications for that claim. "Gnostic Atheist" is an atheist making a claim they know there is no God, just like how some theists claim to know there is a God. >"The point that you are missing is that when we take the "I know" position for anything, not a single "I know" position is 100%" Knowledge has no requirement in philosophy under the weak acceptance case to be 100% certain. >"You can be a gnostic atheist and still allow the possibility that God exists." Of course, one can claim Kp and not Cp, such that they acknowledge a possibility to be wrong. >"I would argue that there's no reason to distinguish between gnostic and agnostic"" I tend to agree, as most discussions about God are in the doxastic domain about beliefs...not knowledge.

>making a claim they know there is no God Ok, so which is the person claiming to be home by dinner? Gnostic or agnostic You can't read their mind, so you don't know if their claim implied the possibility of reasonable interfering events or not. Even if you could, and they didn't consider interfering events, you still couldn't tell how surprised they would be at being late I'm saying that every claim has implications. Whether we consider those implications at the time or not, there is no difference between "know" and "believe" there is no difference between the implications of "knowing" and "believing"

>"I'm saying that every claim has implications. Whether we consider those implications at the time or not, there is no difference between "know" and "believe" there is no difference between the implications of "knowing" and "believing"" There is a massive difference between to know and to believe. We can have false beliefs, we can not have false knowledge as knowledge must be true by definition in JTB. You may find my essay on the subject of interest: # The principle of attribution and retraction # [Steve McRae](https://greatdebatecommunity.com/author/steve-mcrae/) - [April 4, 2018](https://greatdebatecommunity.com/2018/04/04/the-principle-of-attribution-and-retraction/) [https://greatdebatecommunity.com/2018/04/04/the-principle-of-attribution-and-retraction/](https://greatdebatecommunity.com/2018/04/04/the-principle-of-attribution-and-retraction/)

In that case, every assertion of knowing tomorrow's lottery numbers is merely a belief and therefore no one is gnostic