I just can't explain away the problems of a first cause, or of an infinite regression if there is none. There are so many questions that current scientific thought can't answer right now.
What part of "I don't know" justifies "therefore God?"
Nowhere did I say that I believe in God. In fact, the definition of agnosticism is that you are not certain about the existence of god, and I identify as a neutral agnostic, not leaning one way or the other. And while we can scientifically disprove the existence of unicorns or leprechauns, scientifically disproving the possibility of the existence of a god is much harder, which is why there is so much discussion about it vs whether or not unicorns are real.
All I'm saying is trying to keep an open mind on this stuff can be helpful. I thought the post to some extent belittled people who do believe or at least people who ask questions about possibly whether or not a god exists. It is much more productive to have rational conversations about this stuff rather than simply insulting the intelligence of the other side in my opinion.
Nowhere did I say that I believe in God. In fact, the definition of agnosticism is that you are not certain about the existence of god, and I identify as a neutral agnostic, not leaning one way or the other.
Are you equaly unsure about the Christian God and Flying Spaghetti Monster (pesto be upon him)? What makes one or the other seem silly to you?
If there's a creator god, does it need to be all-knowing, all-mightly, all-benevolent? Does it need to be to be capable of decisions? Does it need to be aware? Does it need to exist past the Big Bang?
The more no you put, the closer you are to just slapping the label "God" on "I don't know".
I didn't say you did. I asked a simple question: what about "I don't know" justifies belief?
I don't claim to be certain about the existence of any gods, and I'm an atheist. I simply don't accept that "I don't know" means I should treat the possibility with equal respect as the evidence for a universe that is purely natural and shows no evidence of divine intervention. I have an open mind in so far as I'm willing to be wrong, but in order to convince me of that I will need evidence that doesn't require a desire to believe in the first place. It's easier to describe the gods I don't believe in than to try to refute each and every possible permutation of godhood that humans can imagine.
What part of "I don't know" justifies "therefore God?"
Nowhere did I say that I believe in God. In fact, the definition of agnosticism is that you are not certain about the existence of god, and I identify as a neutral agnostic, not leaning one way or the other. And while we can scientifically disprove the existence of unicorns or leprechauns, scientifically disproving the possibility of the existence of a god is much harder, which is why there is so much discussion about it vs whether or not unicorns are real.
All I'm saying is trying to keep an open mind on this stuff can be helpful. I thought the post to some extent belittled people who do believe or at least people who ask questions about possibly whether or not a god exists. It is much more productive to have rational conversations about this stuff rather than simply insulting the intelligence of the other side in my opinion.
Are you equaly unsure about the Christian God and Flying Spaghetti Monster (pesto be upon him)? What makes one or the other seem silly to you?
If there's a creator god, does it need to be all-knowing, all-mightly, all-benevolent? Does it need to be to be capable of decisions? Does it need to be aware? Does it need to exist past the Big Bang?
The more no you put, the closer you are to just slapping the label "God" on "I don't know".
I didn't say you did. I asked a simple question: what about "I don't know" justifies belief?
I don't claim to be certain about the existence of any gods, and I'm an atheist. I simply don't accept that "I don't know" means I should treat the possibility with equal respect as the evidence for a universe that is purely natural and shows no evidence of divine intervention. I have an open mind in so far as I'm willing to be wrong, but in order to convince me of that I will need evidence that doesn't require a desire to believe in the first place. It's easier to describe the gods I don't believe in than to try to refute each and every possible permutation of godhood that humans can imagine.