Spike,
I think we got off the track. Here is my point. With no empirical evidence, and no hope or need that we will find any, I believe <insert Nicene Creed>.
The thing that started our discussion was your insistence that DC's position was indefensible because we don't have exhaustive empirical evidence. My point about that is that empricism will not prove or disprove the existence of God. So I take Dawkin's argument when it comes to that. The difference between Dawkins and I is that he is a logical positivist and I am not. He and I agree empirically, but not as a matter of faith.
I maintain that DC is right in "not playing the game." because any empirical arguments about the existence of God cannot be anything more than a game, since there is no evidence to work with. Rightfully, Dawkins claims that the same game applies to Zeus, Thor, and the orbiting teacup.
Really, isn't saying that creation does not need a creator also an arbitrary and extraordinary statement. If not, why not. And, as they say, extraordinary statements require extraordinary proof. So far, there is zilch proof that a creator does not exist. Creation is the proof that a creator exists, isn't it? Why not?
Yes, I understand your position exactly, and this is why it is bogus. ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE. It is a logical fallacy that goes something like this:
1. It cannot be shown that P is not true.
2. Therefore P.
and conversely,
1. It cannot be shown that P is true.
2. Therefore not-P.
Since it is an equally fallacious assertion either way, it can be applied to anything, (God, Zeus, orbiting teacups) and in all cases it is worthless.
Now listen Dawkins and et al have a specific problem with all gods that have a history or story that seems to them mythological. My God at the moment here is a God of creation. Nothing more or less. He has no myths to get hung up on.
Neither does Dawkin's orbiting teacup. His point is that legend, myth or something that was made up only moments ago, is all nonsense if there is no evidence for it. In Dawkin's case, he is not using the argument from ignorance position. He doesn't say God does not exists. He is saying that the conversation is pointless.
I've understood DC-Deep's position from before ever hitting LPSG. It's not a recent personal epiphany or learned nuanced. I just find non-believer = atheist is functionally the same, I used to humor that distintion but not so much anymore. At least atheist is more intellectually honest. Non-believer is an escapist formulation.
I think you are being hyprocritical, since you would not say the same thing about Zeus. Are you an atheist when it comes to Zeus or do you think the question is nonsense, like Dawkins does? Or do you just abstain with no particular passion about it like DC does. I think in the case of Zeus, atheism is the least honest position. Non-believer is the most honest position, if you define honesty as holding the position that is most logically defensible.
You can call him Thor, Aphrodite, FSM, Yaweh, I don't care. You want to call him Thor? Okay, I'm arguing for Thor..
Ok, so Thor is the creator of the universe. I just needed to get that right.
You are more of a believer than I. Isn't Jesus a physical, empirical representation of God? If not, why not? (Be careful Peter)...
Emprically there is no evidence that Jesus is a physical, empirical representation of God. So empirically the answer is no. My understanding of Jesus as the son of God is based on faith. In fact, my understanding is that the only representation of God that we are to put any faith in is Jesus as recommended by Martin Luther.
My faith as I've gotten to defining it does not really care if God will ever present himself in a empirical fashion. I seems irrelevant to me, but very relevant to you and to Dawkins.
Now you now back to where I began. My faith is not based on evidence and I don't expect to find any. I brought up Dawkins when I was defending DC against your empirical arguments.
This is really my message to you, spiker. Faith is sufficient. You either have it or you don't and even that is a gift from God according to St. Paul.
Without faith in God, there is no other meaningful conversation one can have about it. And relying on empirical arguments to show how one's Atheism has to be an article of faith doesn't work. Because once you invoke empiricism, you are forced to use something bogus, such as the lack of empirical evidence to support your position. With no evidence either way, the empirical conversation about God is devoid of content.