Gggg102:

disproving any god disproves that god alone.
possibly, except they are disproved.

I can't prove a green elephant is not the creator because I don't know anything about the creation of the universe. I don't know if it was created or uncreated.

but you, an atheist, knows that no god created the universe so it shouldn't be difficult for you to prove that a green elephant did not create it.

An theists knows that no God created the universe because no God has ever been proven. Its as simple as that.

Dalamama:
The sun exist regardless of what ANY human says about it...

...

Dalamama:
...At least any body that has eyes, is lucid and not under the influence of any thing can see it or feel it's heat.

...then the inevitable qualifications! You rule out any dissenting opinion. Anyone can do that:

"God exist regardless of what any human says about it..At least anybody that is good, has spiritual awareness and is not under the influence of any bad spirit can know him."

For me, it is ok not believing in a god. I don't believe in god. But I know that doesn't mean that science has some inherent privileged position. In fact science is just another religion. Most people don't know enough about the basis of science to understand that it is just a religion.

And what if we turn the clock back to some time and place where it would have seemed sensible to say...

"The Earth is flat regardless of what any human says about it. At least anybody that has eyes, is lucid and not under the influence of any thing can see it and understand it."

Gggg102:


now you are being dishonest.

atheists KNOW that god does not exist.

if you don't know, how do you say that it is a fact that god does not exist?

you should be able to prove what you know.

"Know" is just a word... No need stressing so much on it. Atheist actually dismiss the idea of God or gods because this idea have been shown to be unreasonable.
Knowing that God does not exist in the way u mean it is too much for any human to handle.
As long as u reject the idea of a God or gods because it does not make sense to u, u are an atheist.
No one has really claimed he is perfectly sure God does not exists simply because we were all born to meet the universe and the cause seem to be beyond us as all people do is come out with falsifiable theories.
But all God idea can be dismissed simply because they are unreasonable... This is what atheist actually KNOW

frank317:


"Know" is just a word... No need stressing so much on it. Atheist actually dismiss the idea of God or gods because this idea have been shown to be unreasonable.
Knowing that God does not exist in the way u mean is is to much for any human to handle.
As long as u reject the idea of a Good or gods because it does not make sense to u, u are an atheist.
No one has really claimed he is perfectly sure God does not exists simply because we were all born to meet the universe and the cause seem to be beyond us.
But all God idea can be dismissed simply because they are unreasonable... This is what atheist actually KNOW

Semantically, that is agnosticism, not atheism.

That, for example, is why "leading atheist", Richard Dawkins says that he is agnostic, not an atheist.

Dalamama:


Creation of the universe is an assumption. You've not provided evidence to show that the universe was created at all. You are just saying that it was created based purely on empty assumption. You'll have to show me that the universe was created first then tell me to disprove the creator hypothesis. But since you haven't shown that the universe was created, I have no need to disprove your assumptions.



I am not interested in disproving an empty assumption. We will first talk about the universe having a creator when you show with evidence that it was created. When you do that then you can tell me to disprove that it has a creator, since you haven't done that then I am not interested in disproving an empty assumption on your part.



The sun exist independent of man, I can point to it. It's existence is unequivocal and very objective. It exist independent of man and can be shown. God / God's do not exist independent of man. No God can he shown to exist on its own without human input. Show me a God that exist on its own without human input. Just pointto it the way you'll point to the sun. Sun exist on its own, Gods are ideas that rely on human input you are hear telling me about a God, why don't you just show it to me and allow it to do the talking by it self, that's if you believe in the God version that talks.



atoms exist in reality, we are conscious of the existence of atoms, we have an idea of atoms. they exist in our minds.



If God exist then point to it or show how it exist. You are sure God exist? Show how it exist so that I too can be sure it exist .

that the universe was not created is also an empty assertion you've not proved.

you've already asserted that the universe has no creator, so you have to prove it also. otherwise, your assertion is empty.

these arguments would only work if you were an agnostic(you don't know if god exists or not) but you are an atheist(you KNOW god does not exist) so you should prove it.

the sun is independent of man but if you had no idea what the sun is, how would you point to it? you can't show sun exist without human input. you said it yourself. you, a human, has to point to the sun. that is human input. god is said to be independent of man but if you had no idea what god is, you can't point to him.

how can you point to something if you have no idea about it's existence?

telling you about the existence is also showing you.
do you ask anyone to show you an atom?
you were told about atoms. most of your scientific knowledge you received from being told, you were not shown directly. it is not everything that can be shown like the sun because not everything is material and not everything can be shown directly.

I'm not sure god exists. I only entertain the possibility because I don't know. you on the other hand dismiss the possibility completely because you KNOW.

Gggg102:


I thought you knew that god doesn't exist.

you are running around in circles. enjoy your tomfoolery

Gggg102:


you've made a claim that the universe was not created. you've made a claim that there is no creator. you've made a claim that there is no god.

nothing creating the universe is also an assumption since nobody has shown that nothing created the universe.
nothing creating the universe is an idea based on the assumption that the universe was not created. this is an empty assumption that has no evidence to support it. how can I prove that the universe was created when the non creation of the universe is only but an assumption on the part of those who float the hypothesis?

I've not made any claim about the universe. I only said God is a human idea , there are many differnt versions of God and no God can be shown to exist on its own without human input.

I've not made any statement about the existence of the universe. I've only talked about God so far. You are the one equating the existence of the universe to God by saying that God created the uinverse, which is just an empty assumption on your part. Your evidence that the universe was created is what? First show that the universe was created then we can move to saying that God created it. Until you do that I have nothing to say about your empty assumptions.

frank317:


An theists knows that no God created the universe because no God has ever been proven. Its as simple as that.

absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

that theist s have not been able to prove god does not mean he doesn't exist, it could mean that we don't have the resources to prove god.

if your logic was to be followed in the last century, we would have things like-

scientist know that there is no atom because atom has never been proven.
because there was a time atoms hadn't been proven.

there was also a time microorganisms had not been proven, so scientist following your logic would have said:
we know that microorganisms do not exist because microorganisms haven't been proven.

or gravitational wave that was proven recently.
scientist before it was proven following your logic would say:
we know that gravitational wave does not exist since gravitational wave hasn't been proved.

Gggg102:


that the universe was not created is also an empty assertion you've not proved.

you've already asserted that the universe has no creator, so you have to prove it also. otherwise, your assertion is empty.

Can you show me where I asserted that the universe was not created?

these arguments would only work if you were an agnostic(you don't know if god exists or not) but you are an atheist(you KNOW god does not exist) so you should prove it.

the sun is independent of man but if you had no idea what the sun is, how would you point to it? you can't show sun exist without human input. you said it yourself. you, a human, has to point to the sun. that is human input. god is said to be independent of man but if you had no idea what god is, you can't point to him.

Which human input is needed to show that the sun exist? I can even point to the sun to my dog and it will see it for itself. It will know that am pointing to something it can see and feel. God is independent of man you say? Then point to it let's see it or tell us how we can encounter it.

how can you point to something if you have no idea about it's existence?

telling you about the existence is also showing you.
do you ask anyone to show you an atom?
you were told about atoms. most of your scientific knowledge you received from being told, you were not shown directly. it is not everything that can be shown like the sun because not everything is material and not everything can be shown directly.

I'm not sure god exists. I only entertain the possibility because I don't know. you on the other hand dismiss the possibility completely because you KNOW.

Telling me about something is not showing me that it exist. Telling and showing are two very different things. God is a human invention and humans have been inventing different Gods throughout their history. Humans have even used different things that exist in nature (stars, moon, sun, rivers etc) as God.

I know that Gods are human ideas, I know that humans have created different ideas and versions of Gods, I know that Gods have not been shown to exist on their own without human input. If God is immaterial, can you tell me how you got to encounter it, so that I can also encounter it and know about its existence.

frank317:


"Know" is just a word... No need stressing so much on it. Atheist actually dismiss the idea of God or gods because this idea have been shown to be unreasonable.
Knowing that God does not exist in the way u mean it is too much for any human to handle.
As long as u reject the idea of a God or gods because it does not make sense to u, u are an atheist.
No one has really claimed he is perfectly sure God does not exists simply because we were all born to meet the universe and the cause seem to be beyond us as all people do is come out with falsifiable theories.
But all God idea can be dismissed simply because they are unreasonable... This is what atheist actually KNOW

so atheists don't know that god does not exist.

that you dismiss an idea does not make it untrue. it could still be the case that god exists.

how has the existence of god Bern shown to be unreasonable?

that it does not make sense to you does not mean it is false. there are many scientific theories that don't make 'sense'. do you dismiss them?

what do you mean by rejection of the idea of god?
is it that you don't believe that god exists? or that you believe that god does not exist?

if you are not perfectly sure, why do you keep asserting it as a fact that god does not exist?

how is creator of the universe unreasonable?

beatmonster:

you are running around in circles. enjoy your tomfoolery

or you can't answer.

Dalamama:


I've not made any claim about the universe. I only said God is a human idea , there are many differnt versions of God and no God can be shown to exist on its own without human input.

I've not made any statement about the existence of the universe. I've only talked about God so far. You are the one equating the existence of the universe to God by saying that God created the uinverse, which is just an empty assumption on your part. Your evidence that the universe was created is what? First show that the universe was created then we can move to saying that God created it. Until you do that I have nothing to say about your empty assumptions.

there are only 3 claims in regards to the existence of the universe.

1. the universe was created and god exists.
2. the universe was not created and god. does not exist.
3. you don't know so it could be 1. or 2.
which one are you?

nothing can be shown to exist without human input.

you've made a claim that god does not exist though. and that claim should be proven else it is just an empty assumption.

do you believe that the universe was created? or it wasn't created? or do you not know if it was created or not?

sinequanon:


Semantically, that is agnosticism, not atheism.

That, for example, is why "leading atheist", Richard Dawkins says that he is agnostic, not an atheist.

Atheism is not knowing God does not exist.. Or is that what atheism is to u.

Atheists are people who dismiss the idea of God because it makes no sense to them.

Is the above definition what agnosticism means?

Knowing God does not exists or the God exists is not possible... This is because no one was there when it all started.

Because of this impossibility, atheists dismiss the idea of God because they know no one knows.

Gggg102:


there are only 3 claims in regards to the existence of the universe.

1. the universe was created and god exists.
2. the universe was not created and god. does not exist.
3. you don't know so it could be 1. or 2.
which one are you?

nothing can be shown to exist without human input.

you've made a claim that god does not exist though. and that claim should be proven else it is just an empty assumption.

do you believe that the universe was created? or it wasn't created? or do you not know if it was created or not?

Why must I believe or accept any assumption about the universe. I don't want to believe anything, I want to KNOW. The two positions or claims you've stated about the universe are all empty assumptions. NONE of them is factual. I don't want any assumptions. I want facts. And the reality is that nobody can prOvid the facts to me.

Which God out of the many God hypothesis do you want me to disprove? There isn't only one God. So your talk about disproving I'd makes no sense since there are many different versions and ideas of God. Which one should I disprove out if the uncontable versions we have around?

Dalamama:


Can you show me where I asserted that the universe was not created?



Which human input is needed to show that the sun exist? I can even point to the sun to my dog and it will see it for itself. It will know that am pointing to something it can see and feel. God is independent of man you say? Then point to it let's see it or tell us how we can encounter it.



Telling me about something is not showing me that it exist. Telling and showing are two very different things. God is a human invention and humans have been inventing different Gods throughout their history. Humans have even used different things that exist in nature (stars, moon, sun, rivers etc) as God.

I know that Gods are human ideas, I know that humans have created different ideas and versions of Gods, I know that Gods have not been shown to exist on their own without human input. If God is immaterial, can you tell me how you got to encounter it, so that I can also encounter it and know about its existence.

by asserting that there is no god, you have asserted that the universe was not created.

you that you pointed, are you not human? is your pointing not an input. not everything can be pointed to.
or do you want to point to an atom?

1.you've made a claim here that god is a human invention, so you have a burden of proof.
2. that humans have been inventing god's throughout history does not necessarily mean god doesn't exist. it could mean humans have been searching but not finding the real answers so they improvise.
the only way to prove god does not exist is to destroy the foundation of god. you have to prove there is no creator of the universe.
3. if humans used sun star and moon as god, would you say they don't exist?

if you KNOW that god is a human idea, you should be able to prove it.
I never said I know if god exists. I can't tell you that I have proof of god's existence. I am only examining the possibility since I don't know.
god might not even be encounterable e. g deist god.

Gggg102:


absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

So? Do u accept theories with no evidence?

that theist s have not been able to prove god does not mean he doesn't exist, it could mean that we don't have the resources to prove god.

Do u have the resource to prove that a white elephant created the world? The universe being created by a creator is as important as the universe itself... If the universe can exist, and we know without resources, why should the creator not easily be known?
If the creator of a known universe cannot be proved after all these years then the best conclusion is that there is no creator.

if your logic was to be followed in the last century, we would have things like-

scientist know that there is no atom because atom has never been proven.
because there was a time atoms hadn't been proven.

Atoms were discovered. No one had issues with atoms existing or not because no one knew it existed.. Or did anyone assume atom existed before it was discovered... See? that's the exact thing theists are doing...

there was also a time microorganisms had not been proven, so scientist following your logic would have said:
we know that microorganisms do not exist because microorganisms haven't been proven.

Microorganisms were discovered... No one could have started proving or disproving microorganisms before they were discovered...no one had discovered God.. Why say he exists? If u say he exists.. Just prove it and not go back to waiting for God to be proven after u say he exists.

or gravitational wave that was proven recently.
scientist before it was proven following your logic would say:
we know that gravitational wave does not exist since gravitational wave hasn't been proved.

My position on this should be clear given the examples above.

Dalamama:


Why must I believe or accept any assumption about the universe. I don't want to believe anything, I want to KNOW. The two positions or claims you've stated about the universe are all empty assumptions. NONE of them is factual. I don't want any assumptions. I want facts. And the reality is that nobody can prOvid the facts to me.

Which God out of the many God hypothesis do you want me to disprove? There isn't only one God. So your talk about disproving I'd makes no sense since there are many different versions and ideas of God. Which one should I disprove out if the uncontable versions we have around?

there are 3 positions there. now you accept that the first two positions are assumptions.
that would put you in category 3.

if you WANT TO KNOW, it means currently YOU DON'T KNOW, that would make you agnostic.

theism and atheism are positions of knowledge.

theists claim to KNOW that there is god.
atheists claim to KNOW that there is no god.

nobody can provide facts for you. neither the theist that says god created the universe not the atheists that say nothing created the universe.

I've told you that you should prove there is no 'creator of the universe'. that would disprove the concept of god once and for all.

if I tell you a specific god and you prove he doesn't exist, that would only prove that god does not exist. it would not prove that there is no god.

if you prove that all the uncountable gods known to man do not exist, you would only prove those gods do not exist. it would not prove that there is no god. the real god could be unknown.

Gggg102:



so atheists don't know that god does not exist.

No one knows... We are all dealing with what we can relate with and so far we have not been able to relate with God.. Just questionable and disproven lies.

that you dismiss an idea does not make it untrue. it could still be the case that god exists.

So u come up with God idea, so many things about him like u are sure, then u wait for it to be proven? Where does this happen... Give me an example were people over blow and idea and wait for it to be proven...

how has the existence of god Bern shown to be unreasonable?

Take a walk into the religious arguments we have been having here.... One even told me god healed a child from comma and left her dumb and crippled because the mother is an unbeliever... Is this kind of God reasonable to u?

that it does not make sense to you does not mean it is false. there are many scientific theories that don't make 'sense'. do you dismiss them?

Wrong and false things do not make sense... U know this.

what do you mean by rejection of the idea of god?
is it that you don't believe that god exists? or that you believe that god does not exist?

I don't believe that gods exist.

if you are not perfectly sure, why do you keep asserting it as a fact that god does not exist?

Because people who are not perfectly sure are asserting that he exists.

how is creator of the universe unreasonable?

He has never be proven.

frank317:


Atheism is not knowing God does not exist.. Or is that what atheism is to u.

Atheists are people who dismiss the idea of God because it makes no sense to them.

Is the above definition what agnosticism means?

Knowing God does not exists or the God exists is not possible... This is because no one was there when it all started.

Because of this impossibility, atheists dismiss the idea of God because they know no one knows.

There are indeed broad and narrow definitions.

The narrowest definition defines atheism as the belief that no deities exist. I avoid the term in relation to myself. I just say that I do not "believe in" (i.e worship) god/gods. In terms of existence, I believe that deities/gods exist, in that they are supernatural beings worshiped by their followers. I am just not one of those followers.

The debate is intellectually very challenging, and is dealt with by very eloquent philosophers, so, yes, one has to be very careful and precise in using terms and constructing an argument.

Your definition of atheism actually seems a bit different from the normal spectrum of definitions I have come across, and there seems to be a little ambiguity, imo.

You have the argument that the term "god" makes no sense (cannot be conceptualized at all), and the position that argues from lack of experience (e.g witnessing an act of creation of the universe). If the term "god" makes no sense, the question of witnessing god makes no sense. You wouldn't know what you are witnessing, or how to witness it. On the other hand, if witnessing god demonstrates existence, then the term must make sense. So, can you clarify where you stand?

frank317:

So? Do u accept theories with no evidence?


Do u have the resource to prove that a white elephant created the world? The universe being created by a creator is as important as the universe itself... If the universe can exist, and we know without resources, why should the creator not easily be known?
If the creator of a known universe cannot be proved after all these years then the best conclusion is that there is no creator.


Atoms were discovered. No one had issues with atoms existing or not because no one knew it existed.. Or did anyone assume atom existed before it was discovered... See? that's the exact thing theists are doing...


Microorganisms were discovered... No one could have started proving or disproving microorganisms before they were discovered...no one had discovered God.. Why say he exists? If u say he exists.. Just prove it and not go back to waiting for God to be proven after u say he exists.


My position on this should be clear given the examples above.

no I don't accept them. that does not still make the theory false.

no I don't have the resources.
the same way you don't know anonymous creators. and also, science is limited.there was no science before the universe existed, so it makes sense that science cannot investigate whatever was before the universe.

the best conclusion is that we don't know. you know why? it's because absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.
using your logic, a theist would say: since after all these while it has not been proven that god doesn't exist, then the best conclusion is that it exists.

atoms were first theorized before they were discovered.
same with microorganisms.
ancient people hypothesized about their existence.

gravitational wave was theorized and predicted long before it was discovered.

sinequanon:


There are indeed broad and narrow definitions.

The narrowest definition defines atheism as the belief that no deities exist. I avoid the term in relation to myself. I just say that I do not "believe in" (i.e worship) god/gods. In terms of existence, I believe that deities/gods exist, in that they are supernatural beings worshiped by their followers. I am just not one of those followers.

The debate is intellectually very challenging, and is dealt with by very eloquent philosophers, so, yes, one has to be very careful and precise in using terms and constructing an argument.

Your definition of atheism actually seems a bit different from the normal spectrum of definitions I have come across, and there seems to be a little ambiguity, imo.

You have the argument that the term "god" makes no sense (cannot be conceptualized at all), and the position that argues from lack of experience (e.g witnessing an act of creation of the universe). If the term "god" makes no sense, the question of witnessing god makes no sense. You wouldn't know what you are witnessing, or how to witness it. On the other hand, if witnessing god demonstrates existence, then the term must make sense. So, can you clarify where you stand?

This is the meaning of atheism that I adhere to...

atheism
ˈeɪθɪɪz(ə)m/
noun
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
synonyms: non-belief, non-theism, disbelief, unbelief, scepticism, doubt, agnosticism, irreligion, godlessness, ungodliness, profaneness, impiety, heresy, apostasy, paganism, heathenism, freethinking, nihilism
"atheism is virtually unknown in rural societies"

frank317:


This is the meaning of atheism that I adhere to...

atheism
ˈeɪθɪɪz(ə)m/
noun
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

This assumes that the term "god" makes some kind of sense.

So, what do you understand by the term "god"?

Gggg102:


no I don't accept them. that does not still make the theory false.

True... If one makes an assumption and over blows it... I will say its false especially if I ask certain question that the assumer cannot answer. I don't know what u expect me to think in such situation.

no I don't have the resources.
the same way you don't know anonymous creators. and also, science is limited.there was no science before the universe existed, so it makes sense that science cannot investigate whatever was before the universe.

So since we cannot investigate why make false assumption... Why not leave it at that.. Its like people assuming that there are houses in the sky and expecting me not to dismiss it after asking series of unconfirmed questions.

the best conclusion is that we don't know. you know why? it's because absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

Whennu say u don't know, u have indirectly dismissed all assumptions... Its like saying u did not accept the theory

using your logic, a theist would say: since after all these while it has not been proven that god doesn't exist, then the best conclusion is that it exists.

Anyone can actually make any meaningless statement. Only mad people make assumptions and come to conclusion about it without prove. Assumptions without proves should be dismissed not accepted.

atoms were first theorized before they were discovered.
same with microorganisms.
ancient people hypothesized about their existence.

This is not true... Pls lets not make bogus statements to with arguments.

gravitational wave was theorized and predicted long before it was discovered.

It was theorized after it was observed not before... Thats not what theists do.

frank317:

No one knows... We are all dealing with what we can relate with and so far we have not been able to relate with God.. Just questionable and disproven lies.


So u come up with God idea, so many things about him like u are sure, then u wait for it to be proven? Where does this happen... Give me an example were people over blow and idea and wait for it to be proven...


Take a walk into the religious arguments we have been having here.... One even told me god healed a child from comma and left her dumb and crippled because the mother is an unbeliever... Is this kind of God reasonable to u?


Wrong and false things do not make sense... U know this.


I don't believe that gods exist.


Because people who are not perfectly sure are asserting that he exists.


He has never be proven.

yes. no one knows. except if one of the religions know but that's up to you to examine and determine how true they are.

you don't have to overblow. just creator of the universe is enough.

it is. god is not necessarily benevolent. he could be a tyrant. that won't change him from being the creator of the universe.

yes, in most cases . but not all true information makes sense and not all false information make no sense.

you saying that you don't believe that god exists allows a possibility of his existence. saying you don't believe god exists means you don't know if he exists or not but you choose to remain skeptical until convincing evidence is presented.
it is completely different from believing god doesn't exist which allows zero possibility of his existence. saying god does not exist means there is definitely no god and this should be proven. saying you don't believe god doesn't exist means you are waiting for evidence and until evidence is presented, you hold no opinion on god. you have nothing to prove if you fall in this category.

1. you have to determine if their claim is true.
2. if their claim is not based on evidence, their assertion is empty.

and he has never been proven to not exist.

Gggg102:


there are 3 positions there. now you accept that the first two positions are assumptions.
that would put you in category 3.

if you WANT TO KNOW, it means currently YOU DON'T KNOW, that would make you agnostic.

theism and atheism are positions of knowledge.

theists claim to KNOW that there is god.
atheists claim to KNOW that there is no god.

nobody can provide facts for you. neither the theist that says god created the universe not the atheists that say nothing created the universe.

I've told you that you should prove there is no 'creator of the universe'. that would disprove the concept of god once and for all.

if I tell you a specific god and you prove he doesn't exist, that would only prove that god does not exist. it would not prove that there is no god.

if you prove that all the uncountable gods known to man do not exist, you would only prove those gods do not exist. it would not prove that there is no god. the real god could be unknown.

I want to know if the universe is created, how you have spinned it to me wanting to know about God is what I don't understand.

The existence of the universe is something that is separate from the God hypothesis in my opinion. I understand that God believers always want to tie them up but they are seperate. How should I prove the no creator when that is only an assumption that you've put forward. You want me to disprove your assumption?

Real God you say? If the real God is unknown then how do you get to know that it's real or that it exist?

frank317:

True... If one makes an assumption and over blows it... I will say its false especially if I ask certain question that the assumer cannot answer. I don't know what u expect me to think in such situation.


So since we cannot investigate why make false assumption... Why not leave it at that.. Its like people assuming that there are houses in the sky and expecting me not to dismiss it after asking series of unconfirmed questions.


Whennu say u don't know, u have indirectly dismissed all assumptions... Its like saying u did not accept the theory


Anyone can actually make any meaningless statement. Only mad people make assumptions and come to conclusion about it without prove. Assumptions without proves should be dismissed not accepted.


This is not true... Pls lets not make bogus statements to with arguments.


It was theorized after it was observed not before... Thats not what theists do.

saying it's false is different from saying you don't believe.
saying it is false means you have confirmed that it is not true.
saying you don't believe means you are skeptical and waiting for evidence to move you from your neutral position.
saying you don't believe is far more appropriate.

if people say there are houses in the sky, you can say surely that it is false because you can confirm that there is no house in the sky. but if you can't confirm something is false, disbelief is the best option.

yes you dismiss all assumptions both theistic and atheistic. you are in a neutral position, waiting from proof from either side to convince you to choose a side. more like agnostics actually.
assumptions without proof should not be accepted. even though these assumptions could be true.

deomecritus theorized atoms in ancient Greek without any supporting evidence. his assumptions were not 100% accurate as they were not scientific theory. he coined the word atom.
Dalton theorized atoms before they were observed.
some cultures predicted microorganisms.

Dalamama:


I want to know if the universe is created, how you have spinned it to me wanting to know about God is what I don't understand.

The existence of the universe is something that is separate from the God hypothesis in my opinion. I understand that God believers always want to tie them up but they are seperate. How should I prove the no creator when that is only an assumption that you've put forward. You want me to disprove your assumption?

Real God you say? If the real God is unknown then how do you get to know that it's real or that it exist?

if the universe is created, it automatically means there is a god that created it. nothing have been spinned.

there are two assumptions.
creator and no creator.
you can either believe there is a creator, believe that there is no creator or be skeptical about both positions.
which are you?
I want you to state which group you fall under.

it is an assumption. same with the assumption that there is no god.

frank317:



Knowing God does not exists or the God exists is not possible... This is because no one was there when it all started.

this is the definition of agnosticism.

sinequanon:


This assumes that the term "god" makes some kind of sense.

So, what do you understand by the term "god"?

Creator of the universe who created us to love and worship him

Gggg102:


this is the definition of agnosticism.

There actually is slight difference between atheism and agnosticism...
Agnostics are sure of the possibility of God
Atheists are not sure of the possibility of God

Both agnosticism and theism are a definite position while atheism is a doubtful position... I hope this makes sense

frank317:


There actually is slight difference between atheism and agnosticism...
Agnostics are sure of the possibility of God
Atheists are not sure of the possibility of God

Both agnosticism and theism are a definite position while atheism is a doubtful position... I hope this makes sense

Agnosticism is the view that the existence of God, of the divine or the
supernatural is unknown or
unknowable . [1][2][3]wikipedia

Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of
deities . [1][2][3][4] Less broadly, atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist. [5][6] In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. [1][2][7][8] wikipedia

Theism is broadly defined as the belief in the existence of the Supreme Being or deities . [1][2] wikipedia


theist= there is god.
atheist= there is no god.
agnostic= we don't know.

I became wise