Does God exist? (14 Viewers)

[rATARd]

Just to clarify, the hypothetical God in the poll question - does he have to be one of a pre-existing scripture? I believe in a creator entity, a "God" by conventional definitions, though I don't subscribe to any current religious ideology.

 

[mattd259]

"like I said, assuming omniscience is the easy way out"

It's the easy way out to what? to your proving that omscience is mutually exlusive to free will? If it is, then USE IT. Dont exclude it because its too easy. Use the easiest or best argument that you can, dont hold back.. If you werent talking about your argument, then i'll ask again, what do you mean by "the easy way out"?

"Suppose this holds true. Does this not vindicate my point even further? Existing outside of time means God would know exactly what we do not only before, but after and during our actions, making the whole idea of choice even more illusory."

No this does not vindicate your point further. You havnt given an argument for it. Your just repeating your conlucison. You havnt mentioned how the heck you go from "god knows past, present and future" to "you have no free will"

"Now, even I would agree this point is a bit hazy, but so is the assumption of anything existing "outside of time". Realistically conceiving of something existing that isn't a function of space and time is impossible."

Whether God exists within or outside of time is irrelevant. The point of my paragraph was that God knows the past, the present AND the future, not just the past, as your point implied. Whether he knows it within or outside of time doesnt matter.

"everything done by God is purposeful and planned, such that even such a small event as me driving to Uni this Wednesday is a specific, intended, calculated result of God's actions. Calculated, like with my analogy of moving a toy truck."

Here you say that your driving to uni is a calculated result of GOD'S actions and God's actions alone. Doesnt this assume your conclusion before you even prove it? Making the assumption that your driving to uni is a direct result of God's actions and Gods actions alone exludes any other factors that would affect the event's occurrence, primarily your free will. You automatically assume that you dont have free will in this point.

So in saying that "god specifically made the universe such that q", you are ASSUMING that Gods existence automatically exludes our free will (without an argument), which is your conlusion. You are assuming your conclusion in your reasoning. This is flat out circular reasoning. Your assuming your conclusion to prove the assertion, and using the assertion to prove the conclusion. I think that puts a fairly large hole in your argument.

"In case you plan on arguing further against this, I will explain. "An accident is a specific, identifiable, unexpected, unusual and unintended external action" (from Wiki). Can you see where omnipotence conflicts with this?"

Not sure what your point is here. Are you saying that if an omnipotent God existed, then accidents would not happen, but since accident do happen, then god must not exist? sorry for making you repeat, i'm just trying to get a better picture of what you mean.

"All three of the main terms in this definition, "unexpected, unusual and unintended", imply a lack of power over the event/action in question."

That depends on what standards "accidents" are measured by. If we take it by human standards, and the common use of the word "accident", then an acccident is anything that is unexpected, unusual and unintended in comparison to what WE know.

For example, I had a car crash (i didnt really, just using an analogy). I was going through an intersection when someone ran a red light and hit the side of my car. I didnt expect the car to hit me, I think i'd get hit by a car today so it was very unusual, and i definately didnt intend to get hit by the car. So as far as i know, the whole thing was an accident. So if you are speaking in human standards, you are correct, because we ARE powerless to stop these things.

But when we take the scenario by God's standards, nothing is unexpected, unusual or unintended. Firstly, God is omniscient, so my car crash would have been expected. Secondly, the car crash is not unusual, since God knows the cause of every aspect of the accident ie. He knows that the driver was distracted, and he knows that i wasnt paying attention to my blind spot, and he knows every law of physics that allowed the crash to happen. there is nothing in this scenario that is distant to God, so it was not unusual. Thirdly, God intended the crash. God had every power to be able to stop the crash, but it is possible that he chose not to intervene. So the crash was ALLOWED to happen by God, despite his ability to prevent it. So by God's standards, nothing is an accident. Which standards are you reffering to?

"Which, like I said before, is by definition in conflict with omnipotence which implies complete power over every event/action."

And how is it in conflict with his omnipotence? God is omnipotent, but it is possible that he does not CHOOSE to act on every event that occurs within the universe. God does not have to be in complete domination over every being in existence. He has the power to imbue creations with properties of their own, and he lets them run their course. For example, he created the property that every single object that has a mass, also has a gravitational field. If God imbues this property into all mass, and he created a universe in which these properties can freely manifest themselves, then God is free to let everything run its course.

For example, everytime i drop a rock, and it falls to the ground, does that mean God moved the rock? Not directly. God may have allowed the rock to fall to the ground of it own accord, because it has properties that enable it to do so. In an indirect way, he did make the rock fall because he gave it the ability to fall in the first place, but after the universe is set in motion, God is free to let creation run its course. So if God steps back and lets the universe (which he put into motion) run its course, does that make him any less powerful? the answer is no. God has the power to do anything and everything in the universe, he can just choose not to.

So if God imbues humanity with free will, and allows the consequences of free will to exist, then does that make God any less powerful? No. God IS free and powerful enough to over-rule our free will at any time he wants, but he just continuously chooses not to. This does not make him any less able to do so.


"Any action of free will, therefore, is also in direct conflict with omnipotence; such an action would define an event of "unexpected, unusual and unintended" nature."


Not true. As i mentioned above, nothing is an accident to God. Any action that i make is expected by God. I think we can assume this point because we have assumed that God is omniscient. Any action that i make is not unusual to God, because God knows the inner workings of my mind. He knows my dispositions, my loves my hates, my emotional state, my physical state etc.. God knows everything about me. He knows me better than i know myself. So any action i make is never foreign to God, because he knows the exact root causes of my decisions. Finally, my choices are intended by God, since God intended to give me free will and the ability to choose. So free will does not conflict with God's omnipotence

Crap the post is huge!! Sorry about that! ill try to be more concise next time

 

[mattd259]

Can someone teach me how to quote other posts in the boxes???

 

[LachieM]

"like I said, assuming omniscience is the easy way out"

It's the easy way out to what? to your proving that omscience is mutually exlusive to free will? If it is, then USE IT. Dont exclude it because its too easy. Use the easiest or best argument that you can, dont hold back.. If you werent talking about your argument, then i'll ask again, what do you mean by "the easy way out"?

Okay.

"Suppose this holds true. Does this not vindicate my point even further? Existing outside of time means God would know exactly what we do not only before, but after and during our actions, making the whole idea of choice even more illusory."

No this does not vindicate your point further. You havnt given an argument for it. Your just repeating your conlucison. You havnt mentioned how the heck you go from "god knows past, present and future" to "you have no free will"

I've already explained, in terms of epistemology, why God having knowledge of everything, and in this case the past, present, and future of every one of us, means we don't have free will. If you do not understand, read up on some basic philosophy and/or re-read my initial post on the topic.

"Now, even I would agree this point is a bit hazy, but so is the assumption of anything existing "outside of time". Realistically conceiving of something existing that isn't a function of space and time is impossible."

Whether God exists within or outside of time is irrelevant. The point of my paragraph was that God knows the past, the present AND the future, not just the past, as your point implied. Whether he knows it within or outside of time doesnt matter.

Okay. For future reference, you don't need to waste your time on superfluous points like these. They contribute nothing to the argument.

"everything done by God is purposeful and planned, such that even such a small event as me driving to Uni this Wednesday is a specific, intended, calculated result of God's actions. Calculated, like with my analogy of moving a toy truck."

Here you say that your driving to uni is a calculated result of GOD'S actions and God's actions alone. Doesnt this assume your conclusion before you even prove it? Making the assumption that your driving to uni is a direct result of God's actions and Gods actions alone exludes any other factors that would affect the event's occurrence, primarily your free will. You automatically assume that you dont have free will in this point.

So in saying that "god specifically made the universe such that q", you are ASSUMING that Gods existence automatically exludes our free will (without an argument), which is your conlusion. You are assuming your conclusion in your reasoning. This is flat out circular reasoning. Your assuming your conclusion to prove the assertion, and using the assertion to prove the conclusion. I think that puts a fairly large hole in your argument.

As above, I explained in my initial post on the matter, in terms of epistemology, why free will cannot exist with God's knowledge. Again, please re-read my post or if you don't understand look up some basics on epistemology. There is no circular argument involved.

"In case you plan on arguing further against this, I will explain. "An accident is a specific, identifiable, unexpected, unusual and unintended external action" (from Wiki). Can you see where omnipotence conflicts with this?"

Not sure what your point is here. Are you saying that if an omnipotent God existed, then accidents would not happen, but since accident do happen, then god must not exist? sorry for making you repeat, i'm just trying to get a better picture of what you mean.

"All three of the main terms in this definition, "unexpected, unusual and unintended", imply a lack of power over the event/action in question."

That depends on what standards "accidents" are measured by. If we take it by human standards, and the common use of the word "accident", then an acccident is anything that is unexpected, unusual and unintended in comparison to what WE know.

For example, I had a car crash (i didnt really, just using an analogy). I was going through an intersection when someone ran a red light and hit the side of my car. I didnt expect the car to hit me, I think i'd get hit by a car today so it was very unusual, and i definately didnt intend to get hit by the car. So as far as i know, the whole thing was an accident. So if you are speaking in human standards, you are correct, because we ARE powerless to stop these things.

But when we take the scenario by God's standards, nothing is unexpected, unusual or unintended. Firstly, God is omniscient, so my car crash would have been expected. Secondly, the car crash is not unusual, since God knows the cause of every aspect of the accident ie. He knows that the driver was distracted, and he knows that i wasnt paying attention to my blind spot, and he knows every law of physics that allowed the crash to happen. there is nothing in this scenario that is distant to God, so it was not unusual. Thirdly, God intended the crash. God had every power to be able to stop the crash, but it is possible that he chose not to intervene. So the crash was ALLOWED to happen by God, despite his ability to prevent it. So by God's standards, nothing is an accident. Which standards are you reffering to?

I am referring to God's standards, which I thought was obvious. Again, you vindicate my point. Due to his omnipotence, nothing is an accident to God.

"Which, like I said before, is by definition in conflict with omnipotence which implies complete power over every event/action."

And how is it in conflict with his omnipotence? God is omnipotent, but it is possible that he does not CHOOSE to act on every event that occurs within the universe. God does not have to be in complete domination over every being in existence. He has the power to imbue creations with properties of their own, and he lets them run their course. For example, he created the property that every single object that has a mass, also has a gravitational field. If God imbues this property into all mass, and he created a universe in which these properties can freely manifest themselves, then God is free to let everything run its course.

For example, everytime i drop a rock, and it falls to the ground, does that mean God moved the rock? Not directly. God may have allowed the rock to fall to the ground of it own accord, because it has properties that enable it to do so. In an indirect way, he did make the rock fall because he gave it the ability to fall in the first place, but after the universe is set in motion, God is free to let creation run its course. So if God steps back and lets the universe (which he put into motion) run its course, does that make him any less powerful? the answer is no. God has the power to do anything and everything in the universe, he can just choose not to.

So if God imbues humanity with free will, and allows the consequences of free will to exist, then does that make God any less powerful? No. God IS free and powerful enough to over-rule our free will at any time he wants, but he just continuously chooses not to. This does not make him any less able to do so.

God is omnipotent: he is all powerful. Before the universe there was only God, correct? Effect follows cause, correct? God may be considered the "ultimate cause" in that he "caused" the universe to come about, correct? If you answered yes to these questions, then follow them to their logical conclusion. God effectively "caused" everything. From your hypothetical car crash to me driving to Uni. They are direct effects resulting from his omnipotence, an omnipotence which he, with every calculated purpose, put into play specifically to make things the way they were, are, and will be. You even admit (and rightfully so) that accidents are impossible for God. So how is any event, however slight, not a directly planned and purposefully motivated act of God in his creation of the universe? Rhetorical question. The answer is obviously "every event is directly planned etc etc".

Couple this with his omniscience, and you have yourself a system where free will cannot exist. Again, I suggest you refer back to the epistemological definition of knowledge upon which my main argument rests. Your arguments are clearly ignorant of this basic definition.

Finally, my choices are intended by God

This sounds an awful lot like something that isn't free will. Again, seeing as you are so insistent on assuming omniscience and incapable of understanding my point on omnipotence, refer back to the epistemological definition of knowledge and my initial argument. It's no wonder you find my argument faulty if you don't understand the first bit of it.

 

[Rothbard]

this thread is still going?

This thread is basically responsible for the increase in atheism

arguments for any religion

* there is a designer: Who designed the designer

well he exists outside of space and time thus he wasn't created

what a fucking cop out, what we know from real society is that any intelligent being exists because of the process of evolution which means that there was a prime mover for that intelligent being which even means if it exists outside of our frame of reference (outside of space and time) it still required a first cause

* well no you see there is these books and scriptures

you mean the ones populated with the borrowings of other pagan rites and concepts that wasted away earlier? the concept of the virgin birth, the midnight ride to x y z, the concept of the final repentence, being born on a certain day, performing miracles (curing people on x y z)

* well what about the future revelations of (insert religious text here)
- you're putting the cart before the horse, you're fully aware of these breakthroughs in science and you're post-hocing it
*no I mean it's really valid
- okay, then, tell me something that's going to be discovered in the next few hundred years based on the religious text.

*crickets*

*well what about morality and how people should live?
- Fairly straightforward, we have empathy and a sense of kinship through evolutionary development, the fact that they exist in the situation where we aren't living in close knit communities is a side-effect but not something terrible. It's a positive side effect of the nature of evolution. the point is we exist entirely to propagate our own species but we have the cognisence to do it in a somewhat decent way

* I dont' accept gradual change I think god created us all in his own image etc etc
- Which is idiotic because how do you claim the differences in genes between species that we've linked through other methods? (Such as pre-decessors and common ancestors), what about the absolutely mathematically valid comparisons of genetic code through which we can see a directed change?

hell what about micro-evolution? how can you explain the concept of bacteria and viruses resisting treatments if not through darwininan theory? Organisims adapt to their situations and as such the fittest for the situations continue to exist

*well then if you dont have a set of basic morals how can you have a moral society? aren't you saying all morals are effectively false and if so why don't you go around raping and murdering?
- well, even though it's easy to point out, the vast majority of crimes against other people has been borne from the concept of an ingroup/outgroup mentality that religions promulgate which means they aren't the single bearers of morality. That said we do have several triggers in regards to common decency, in that we have the characteristics to understand and interact with other beings that are themselves self-aware. Surely it is better to live in a society where the morality is able to be questioned and discussions can be had regarding it, rather than a situation where it is set in stone. The very nature of society being in flux means that the claims to absolute morality are intellectually defunct.

 

[Rothbard]

* What about these particular miracles x y z in which god did x y z for me

- selection bias? Have you counted all the times you prayed for something and it didn't happen?

 

[BradCube]

Now to the crux of the point. If God knows that I will drive to Uni on Wednesday, there is no room for error. This is the nature of true knowledge. q must happen, because it is a justified and ultimately true belief that it will. Choice doesn't even enter at any point.

I believe you have fallen into the old problem of logical fatalism. True future tense propositions or foreknowledge regarding your actions does not imply that it "must" come to pass, only that it "will" come to pass. If you were to refrain from driving to Uni on Wednesday then something that is in fact the case would have been otherwise - namely true future tense statements would have been false and God's foreknowledge would have been different.

Recommended Reading:
Amazon: The Only Wise God - The Compatibility of Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom

 

[Scorch]

I believe you have fallen into the old problem of logical fatalism. True future tense propositions or foreknowledge regarding your actions does not imply that it "must" come to pass, only that it "will" come to pass. If you were to refrain from driving to Uni on Wednesday then something that is in fact the case would have been otherwise - namely true future tense statements would have been false and God's foreknowledge would have been different.

Yet the fact that it "will" come to pass implies that it "must", or any such knowledge of what "will" come to pass is rendered meaningless.

Though there are far more severe logical problems with the idea of a creator, specifically a religious one, than determinism.

 

[BradCube]

Yet the fact that it "will" come to pass implies that it "must", or any such knowledge of what "will" come to pass is rendered meaningless.

Not at all. "Must" implies that it couldn't have been any other way whereas "will" places the contingency of the outcome on the event itself.

Though there are far more severe logical problems with the idea of a creator, specifically a religious one, than determinism.

Which logical problems would be more severe?

 

[LachieM]

Not at all. "Must" implies that it couldn't have been any other way whereas "will" places the contingency of the outcome on the event itself.

Assuming I understand correctly, you are saying that the path leading to this outcome can change as long as the outcome remains the same?

You need to consider the fact that every moment in time can be considered an event with an outcome. Being omniscient, God has knowledge of every event in time and space. The differentiation between "must" and "will" becomes superfluous in such a scenario. By this, time is a continuum of these outcomes, each of which must happen just as God knows it will.

 

[BradCube]

Assuming I understand correctly, you are saying that the path leading to this outcome can change as long as the outcome remains the same?

Nope, I'm saying that the event itself is still genuinely open to your will. God knows what you "will" do, but this does not imply that you "must" do this, only that you will. If you were to do differently then God would have known otherwise.

 

[Scorch]

Not at all. "Must" implies that it couldn't have been any other way whereas "will" places the contingency of the outcome on the event itself.

Every event is a culmination of the cause and effects of other events, each and every one of which God knows "will" happen. You can't delineate these two concepts if you admit that God knows everything that will happen. For these events that God knows "will" happen to occur, other events that he also knows "will" happen must cause them, as a result, your distinction between "will" and "must" is entirely useless.

Which logical problems would be more severe?

How much time do you have? Well it really depends if you are talking about a religious God or deistic God, so if you clarify that I'd be happy to proceed.

I would also love to take this opportunity to point out the irony of the fact that when we question the morality of God ordering for entire people to be wiped out for trivial things or ordering that women be put to death if they are raped, we are confronted with "We puny humans are in no position to understand the thought processes of the omnipotent God", yet when it suits theists, they are happy to tell us the intricacies and most nuanced details about exactly what God knows, how he knows it and his entire understanding of temporality and determinism down to the most minute details.

 

[BradCube]

Every event is a culmination of the cause and effects of other events, each and every one of which God knows "will" happen. You can't delineate these two concepts if you admit that God knows everything that will happen. For these events that God knows "will" happen to occur, other events that he also knows "will" happen must cause them, as a result, your distinction between "will" and "must" is entirely useless.

In my mind, it makes no difference as to whether we are looking at an event in isolation or as a succession of prior events. Sure, some things must happen in order for a particular event to be a logical possibility, but this doesn't imply that such an event "must" happen - all that is implied is that a particular event will be possible if events x,y and z occur beforehand. God's foreknowledge of what events will occur is no more limiting than a true future-tense statement regarding such events.

How much time do you have? Well it really depends if you are talking about a religious God or deistic God, so if you clarify that I'd be happy to proceed.

Plenty of time to read - not a huge amount of time to respond - but I'll do my best.

If you could start with logical problems surrounding a deistic God and then work it through to problems surrounding broad conceptions of the Judeo-Christian God that would be great

 

[Scorch]

In my mind, it makes no difference as to whether we are looking at an event in isolation or as a succession of prior events. Sure, some things must happen in order for a particular event to be a logical possibility, but this doesn't imply that such an event "must" happen - all that is implied is that a particular event will be possible if events x,y and z occur beforehand. God's foreknowledge of what events will occur is no more limiting than a true future-tense statement regarding such events.

Like I say, you cannot take any event "in isolation", and this is why defining your terms is important. However there is a reason that I said that this is not one of the most severe problems with ideas of God, and that is because it is conceivable that, if God is omniscient, that he knows that if x, y and z happen then event a will happen, but if v, u and w happen, event b will take place. However then this complicates the idea of what direct result God plays in the universe, for which one must look to more details ideologies of his nature (in religion) to sort this out.

If you could start with logical problems surrounding a deistic God and then work it through to problems surrounding broad conceptions of the Judeo-Christian God that would be great

Well the Judeo-Christian tradition is particularly easy, but if we're going to start with a deistic God, we'll need to define our characteristics of God; could you do that, if you can? The characteristics of God as you believe them without direct reference to the Judeo-Christian tradition?

 

[BradCube]

Like I say, you cannot take any event "in isolation", and this is why defining your terms is important. However there is a reason that I said that this is not one of the most severe problems with ideas of God, and that is because it is conceivable that, if God is omniscient, that he knows that if x, y and z happen then event a will happen, but if v, u and w happen, event b will take place. However then this complicates the idea of what direct result God plays in the universe, for which one must look to more details ideologies of his nature (in religion) to sort this out.

I don't think it really complicates it all too much. All it is proposing is that God has middle knowledge (knowledge of what "would" happen). Either way fatalism doesn't seem to be an issue as you seem to be openly admitting that it's not a problem under particular views of God.

Well the Judeo-Christian tradition is particularly easy, but if we're going to start with a deistic God, we'll need to define our characteristics of God; could you do that, if you can? The characteristics of God as you believe them without direct reference to the Judeo-Christian tradition?

Sure how about we use this definition:
"A transcendent mind who's existence is necessary and from whom all other things rely on contingently for their existence."

If that is not specific enough feel free to add in all the typical notions regarding the characteristics of God - omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, goodness etc.

 

[pman]

Sure, but you're operating on a flawed original assumption of God with not a single shred of evidence and this forces you to re-interpret vast chunks of evidence simply to fit your original assumption; it is wholly unscientific.

no, you remove all assumptions....the big bang happened, you find out how and why, this can then be attributed to god if you believe in him

 

[Scorch]

I don't think it really complicates it all too much. All it is proposing is that God has middle knowledge (knowledge of what "would" happen). Either way fatalism doesn't seem to be an issue as you seem to be openly admitting that it's not a problem under particular views of God.

Well as I said, most logical problems with the idea of a creator quickly fade away when you remove them from religion. That is to say that the religious idea of a God is logically inconsistent, scientifically implausible and historically inaccurate. Yet a more vague deistic God is really the only God fluid enough to be able to adapt to such ideas.

There is less, intellectually, to find absurd about a belief in God then belief in religion. If that God is not connected to archaic discourses of religion, then you may find yourself with some scientifically plausible ideas of God. I would still find no reason to believe in it, as there is no evidence whatsoever for his existence, but I would not find it so idiotic.

Sure how about we use this definition:
"A transcendent mind who's existence is necessary and from whom all other things rely on contingently for their existence."

If that is not specific enough feel free to add in all the typical notions regarding the characteristics of God - omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, goodness etc.

Okay, sure. So do you mind if I use the characteristics of God; omniscience, omnipotence and omni-benevolence, as well?

See because this is all related to what I said above, the description you gave, "A transcendent mind who's existence is necessary and from whom all other things rely on contingently for their existence.", is not scientifically so idiotic as some religious discourses of his existence. It is still hampered by the problem that there is no evidence for his existence, so he remains as likely to believe as any other God you may think of, yet it is freed by the dogma and such of religion.

no, you remove all assumptions....the big bang happened, you find out how and why, this can then be attributed to god if you believe in him

This is a poor example. Given that the evolution of hominid ancestors of humanity over the past 2 million years is scientific fact, as is the fact that humanity itself has been around for almost 200,000 years, could you please tell me how, from a religious viewpoint, you could deal with this idea without [a] re-interpreting or willfully misunderstanding chunks of the evidence or contradicting the account of the Bible?

 

[BradCube]

Okay, sure. So do you mind if I use the characteristics of God; omniscience, omnipotence and omni-benevolence, as well?

Sure thing. I'll just add one qualification on omni-benevolence and that is that God's acts of benevolence should/will ultimately be aimed toward the greatest possible good.

See because this is all related to what I said above, the description you gave, "A transcendent mind who's existence is necessary and from whom all other things rely on contingently for their existence.", is not scientifically so idiotic as some religious discourses of his existence. It is still hampered by the problem that there is no evidence for his existence, so he remains as likely to believe as any other God you may think of, yet it is freed by the dogma and such of religion

I'm not so sure I really understand your position. You don't hate the idea of God's existence in a broad concept, you simply hate religion? Personally, I think there are many convincing arguments from natural theology that make it more plausibly true than false that God exists. Do you count yourself as an atheist in the sense that you affirm that there exists no God, or do you class yourself as an agnostic and neither confirm nor deny such a deity's existence?

For the moment I'm happy debating broad conceptions of God based on my definition. I figure this will enable us to work through some of these larger issues before getting into more intricate details when tied to a particular conception of God.

 

[tommykins]

Quite interesting that in my Science and Religion readings, scholars do not agree to the

Okay, sure. So do you mind if I use the characteristics of God; omniscience, omnipotence and omni-benevolence, as well?

As it is a Descartes ideology, not the Christian Ideology.

Cbf finding the article atm though.

 

[Scorch]

Sure thing. I'll just add one qualification on omni-benevolence and that is that God's acts of benevolence should/will ultimately be aimed toward the greatest possible good.

Sure, that's fine. I don't really need any more than that to point out the logical flaws, but now that we've established our rules, my opening point on this will have to wait until a bit later tonight, for I'm short on time.

I'm not so sure I really understand your position. You don't hate the idea of God's existence in a broad concept, you simply hate religion? Personally, I think there are many convincing arguments from natural theology that make it more plausibly true than false that God exists. Do you count yourself as an atheist in the sense that you affirm that there exists no God, or do you class yourself as an agnostic and neither confirm nor deny such a deity's existence?

Hate is a strong word. I find that there is no good reason to find the idea of a more vague deistic or pantheistic God convincing, but I recognize that, as it is not tied down to a 2700 year old book of fables, it has more room for adaptability without any of the hypocrisy that religion presents.

One can find God in anything if you are convinced enough and look hard enough, but there remains no evidence, so it is a positive logical claim without proof. I find that there is no good reason to believe God is behind something when a perfectly natural explanation exists, with self-contained logic that does not require an outside force.

Yet, as I say, as soon as you even begin to characterize God, the logical problems are evident, to the point that the ideology of religion itself is an absolute absurdity.

As for the atheism vs. agnosticism, I believe there is no difference. Agnosticism is usually stressed by theists as a middle ground in order to make atheism seem more irrational, however there is nothing irrational about atheism.

Do you say Zeus does not exist? Or Thor? Or the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Or Unicorns? There is as much evidence for all these entities as God; yet you deny their existence (presumably). Why does it suddenly become irrational to deny the existence of the Christian God simply because more people believe he exists now? It does not.

Therefore, were one to take an agnostic position (we cannot know for sure if God does or does not exist), one would have to realize that there is absolutely no evidence for his existence, and there is nothing irrational about operating one's life as though he does not exist.

So I shall clarify, I am atheistic about God in the same way you are atheistic about Thor.

Does that make sense?