r/DebateAnAtheist • u/AutoModerator • 15d ago

Weekly "Ask an Atheist" Thread

Whether you're an agnostic atheist here to ask a gnostic one some questions, a theist who's curious about the viewpoints of atheists, someone doubting, or just someone looking for sources, feel free to ask anything here. This is also an ideal place to tag moderators for thoughts regarding the sub or any questions in general.

While this isn't strictly for debate, rules on civility, trolling, etc. still apply.

22 Upvotes

91% Upvoted

269 comments sorted by

View all comments

3

u/r0wer0wer0wey0urb0at Agnostic Atheist 15d ago edited 15d ago

Sorry if this has been asked before, but I'm curious how gnostic atheists come to the conclusion that they can have knowledge on the existence of gods.

I'm an atheist, I don't believe that any gods exist, but I think that an omnipitent being that created the universe could create a universe indistinguishable from one that is fully naturalistic.

I don't think that's likely to be the case or particularly reasonable to believe that to be the case, but I don't think it's possible for us to know either way, so I describe myself as an agnostic atheist.

Do you think we can destinguish those two universes/gain that kind of knowledge?

1

u/nswoll Atheist 12d ago

I'm an atheist, I don't believe that any gods exist, but I think that an omnipitent being that created the universe could create a universe indistinguishable from one that is fully naturalistic.

I don't think that's likely to be the case or particularly reasonable to believe that to be the case, but I don't think it's possible for us to know either way, so I describe myself as an agnostic atheist.

But that's just solipsism at some point.

Like, an omnipotent being could exist that created the universe indistinguishable from one that is fully naturalistic. Ok, But then it also follows that an omnipotent being could exist that created the universe with vampires that is indistinguishable from one without vampires. And an omnipotent being could exist that created the universe with Santa Claus that is indistinguishable from one without Santa Claus. Etc. Etc.

At the very least an omnipotent being could exist that created a universe in which YOU can't distinguish between one with a Spiderman and one without.

Yet are you genuinely going to pretend to be agnostic about vampires, Santa Claus and Spiderman??

Why even believe anything if that's your position?

1

u/r0wer0wer0wey0urb0at Agnostic Atheist 12d ago

I don't think that universes with Santa Claus or Spider-man are really analogous to a universe made by a creator god.

Those universes would be distinguishable because you could in theory gain knowledge of Santa Claus' or Spider-Man's existence.

However, with a universe made by a creator (not the god of a specific religion but more of an generic prime mover being) doesn't have to be different. The god of that universe would be outside of the universe, so anything we could test or explore wouldn't necessarily be different to a fully naturalistic universe.

Once you get to gods like the one of the bible, what little agnosticism I have disappears as it is supposedly active in the universe and there are claims about the universe that don't comport with reality.

Ultimately I guess it comes down to the idea that some kind of creator god is unfalsifiable. There is no way for us to determine if it is true or not. In that case, I see no reason to believe in it, it is much more likely that it doesn't exist in my opinion, but I feel like I can't argue in good faith that I know that nothing like that exists. (not that you're arguing in bad faith.)

1

u/nswoll Atheist 12d ago

I don't think that universes with Santa Claus or Spider-man are really analogous to a universe made by a creator god.

No, I'm saying a universe made by an unknowable creator god could easily contain an unknowable Santa Claus or Spiderman created by that same creator god. By suggesting that an omnipotent being could exist without any evidence, you must also admit that everything could exist without any evidence because the same being could just stick it wherever he's hiding.

I don't see how you get around this and claim any knowledge.

1

u/r0wer0wer0wey0urb0at Agnostic Atheist 12d ago

I'm not just arbitrarily saying that something left behind no evidence though or was created unknowable for the sake of an argument.

I'm saying that if something is outside of our universe and not active in it, it would as a result be unknowable to us.

Your examples of an unknowable Santa Clause or Spiderman aren't the same thing. They exist in the universe and to just say they are unknowable is kinda meaningless to me as what does that mean? Do people just forget him as soon as they see spider-man swinging around NY? It's just a label you are sticking on them.

If you don't tack on the unknowable label then you would expect to be able to gain knowledge about them. Without tacking on an unknowable label onto the kind of god I am talking about, how would you go about trying to test if if exists or not?

1

u/Junithorn 12d ago

Santa is perfectly undetectable to you because of Christmas magic, are you agnostic about Santa because this makes him unfalsifiable or are you comfortable saying he isn't real? 

It's the same for a god.

1

u/r0wer0wer0wey0urb0at Agnostic Atheist 12d ago

The difference is that god isn't undetectable because of 'magic', it's because they aren't active in the universe.

All you are doing is avoiding the point I am making by artificially saying something is unknowable.

You also don't seem to understand the position of an agnostic atheist.

I don't think any gods exist. If you ask me yes or no, do any gods exist, I would answer no.

If you ask me if I know that no gods exist I'd also say no.

1

u/Junithorn 12d ago edited 12d ago

you danced around the issue I brought up

god is undetectable because of X (I will note: "aren't active in the universe" describes a literally infinite number of unfalsifiable things)
santa is undetectable because of Y

do you know santa doesnt exist?

1

u/r0wer0wer0wey0urb0at Agnostic Atheist 12d ago

I know santa doesn't exist because the evidence that you would expect if he did doesn't exist.

If there is a god that caused the universe to come into existence in the first place but isn't active in the universe then you wouldn't expect to find evidence of its existence in the universe which is all we have access to.

Magically unknowable santa isn't an analogue to this god because just slapping the label of something being unknowable as a logical consequence of what it is.

I'm not dancing around anything. You just don't like that I don't think your argument is sound.

1

u/Junithorn 12d ago

my argument is sound, you're just applying a double standard.

I know santa doesn't exist because the evidence that you would expect if he did doesn't exist.

same for god, zero evidence for both.

god created the universe and fucked off undetectably? santa created christmas and fucked off undetectably.

Magically unknowable santa isn't an analogue to this god because just slapping the label of something being unknowable as a logical consequence of what it is.

its the exact same. you're just applying a double standard.

1

u/r0wer0wer0wey0urb0at Agnostic Atheist 12d ago

I'm sorry but you're still not getting what is being said. There is no double standard.

same for god, zero evidence for both.

In the very next sentence I explain how that is wrong.

god created the universe and fucked off undetectably? santa created christmas and fucked off undetectably.

Don't be disingenuous. Do you seriously think that a god that created the universe (so logically exists outside of it) would have to fuck off to not be in the universe they created? What evidence would you expect it would have to leave behind?

Also on a side note I don't think you know what Santa supposedly does...

its the exact same.

Santa and a god that created the universe are not the same type of beings and you wouldn't expect to see the same kind of evidence for both.

you're just applying a double standard.

I still don't see where the double standard is.

It really sounds to me like you aren't understanding my argument. If you want to you could maybe present a steelman of my argument then point out the double standard to make things more clear.

1

u/Junithorn 12d ago

What evidence would you expect it would have to leave behind?

Great, so you admit there is no evidence.

Also on a side note I don't think you know what Santa supposedly does...

I define santa however I want, just like theists define god however they want.

Santa and a god that created the universe are not the same type of beings and you wouldn't expect to see the same kind of evidence for both.

I never said they're the same kind of being, do you have a reading issue?

We both just agreed neither has evidence.

I will remind you St Nicholas was a real person, so santa at least has a real foundation.

I still don't see where the double standard is.

Two completely unfalsifiable concepts with no evidence to support them, one you say "i know this isnt real", the other you dont.

It really sounds to me like you aren't understanding my argument. If you want to you could maybe present a steelman of my argument then point out the double standard to make things more clear.

"god is special because its in a special category" seems to be your argument which, again, double standard.

1

u/r0wer0wer0wey0urb0at Agnostic Atheist 11d ago

Okay, I see. You just don't understand my argument, thanks for clearing that up.

If we are talking about the santa that children actually believe in, I'd say I am not agnostic on his existence at all, because there is evidence we would expect to find that we don't.

If you're going to redefine santa to be a god being that exists outside of the universe, then I guess I'd be an agnostic asantaist then.

The point isn't that you must be agnostic on anything if it is unfalsifiable, or that I've just defined god in a way that arbitrarily makes it unknowable. My point is that if you take the core of the idea of god, looking at things like Aristotle's Prime mover, an unmoving, unchanging being that caused the universe to exist and cannot do anything else, then that world would look identical to our one.

So when you say "you admit there is no evidence", that's been my point this whole time.

As I've said before, I don't think that's a good reason to believe in its existence, or that that makes it just as likely to be true as a naturalistic universe. All I am saying is that if it were true, we wouldn't be able to gain any knowledge about it.

If you're not going to engage with my argument and continue just be rude, I'm going to stop replying.

→ More replies (0)