That logic is flawed. Just because we don’t understand why there is something rather than nothing, there is no logical implication that there could be a higher being. “Coincidence” would seem to be a much more likely reason (until/if we understand why) - much like coincidence being the reason for most (all?) observed miracles
“Coincidence” would seem to be a much more likely reason
How so? How do you define “coincidence” in this context?
Even if “coincidence” is more likely, that doesn’t rule out the possibility of a higher power.
Atheism is the assertion that there is no God, agnosticism is the acknowledgement that we can’t actually prove such an assertion. As an agnostic, I dont necessarily believe that a higher power is likely to exist, I simply know that I am unable to definitively prove otherwise.
If you claim to be an atheist, you should be able to logically demonstrate that a higher power cannot possibly exist. Go ahead.
Atheism is the assertion that there is no God, agnosticism is the acknowledgement that we can’t actually prove such an assertion
Most atheists tend to identify as agnostic atheists. You’re arguing against gnostic atheists, which are few and far between in my experience. The qualifier is usually dropped out of simplicity.
I’m gnostic about the Judeo-Christian god existing, and agnostic about any god existing. I still identify as an atheist.
I also fail to understand how that addresses the infinite recursion with gods. I mean if there is something. And that requires a creator. Who created the creator? And who created that creator of the creator? I think I tend towards gnostic atheism. I’m pretty sure that the idea of god is a really stupid answer to that question. But I also know how science and knowledge works. So I technically wouldn’t claim to know, unless someone claim’s it’s a different thing for Russel’s teapot or the flying spaghetti-monster. That’s kind of the benchmark to tell if someone understands what I mean by agnostic atheist.
That logic is flawed. Just because we don’t understand why there is something rather than nothing, there is no logical implication that there could be a higher being. “Coincidence” would seem to be a much more likely reason (until/if we understand why) - much like coincidence being the reason for most (all?) observed miracles
How so? How do you define “coincidence” in this context?
Even if “coincidence” is more likely, that doesn’t rule out the possibility of a higher power.
Atheism is the assertion that there is no God, agnosticism is the acknowledgement that we can’t actually prove such an assertion. As an agnostic, I dont necessarily believe that a higher power is likely to exist, I simply know that I am unable to definitively prove otherwise.
If you claim to be an atheist, you should be able to logically demonstrate that a higher power cannot possibly exist. Go ahead.
Most atheists tend to identify as agnostic atheists. You’re arguing against gnostic atheists, which are few and far between in my experience. The qualifier is usually dropped out of simplicity.
I’m gnostic about the Judeo-Christian god existing, and agnostic about any god existing. I still identify as an atheist.
I also fail to understand how that addresses the infinite recursion with gods. I mean if there is something. And that requires a creator. Who created the creator? And who created that creator of the creator? I think I tend towards gnostic atheism. I’m pretty sure that the idea of god is a really stupid answer to that question. But I also know how science and knowledge works. So I technically wouldn’t claim to know, unless someone claim’s it’s a different thing for Russel’s teapot or the flying spaghetti-monster. That’s kind of the benchmark to tell if someone understands what I mean by agnostic atheist.