But since we have very good reasons to believe God doesn’t exist and someone presents us with those arguments, surely we’ll assume that they have to be wrong. And so we’ll search very hard, until we find something that is plausibly an error or at least more plausible than God and talk ourselves into believing it.
Any valid argument can easily be rejected by doubting its premises. But that works both ways. You can nitpick the theists’ arguments by pointing out that their premises aren’t necessarily true, but they can do the same to you. For instance, atheists often assume that God must be highly complex (which is essentially the assumption that God must be natural) or that God must be visible to the senses, and so on. Theologians don’t define God that way, so they see those arguments as irrelevant.
For instance, atheists often assume that God must be highly complex (which is essentially the assumption that God must be natural)
What do you mean by natural? In order for God to be simple, his emotions must be denied or explained. For example, there could be some physics exploit by which an ancient human could become omnipotent. Another simple specification of God could be through an equation describing some goal-directed agent. Emotions might fall out of agency via game theory, except that game theory doesn’t really apply when you’re omnipotent. And what would be the goal? Our world doesn’t look like a simple goal is being maximized by a God.
Assuming that God is an anthropomorphic being with emotions is another way of assuming that God is natural. Some theists do think that way, but they are the easy target. The strongman versions of theism dont see God as a superhuman.
So Rationalists aren’t following their own rules about strongmanning, and are only addressing Judeo Christian conceits of God, and are only addressing unsophisticated, fundamentalist ideas, and are allowing other god-like entities, such as omegas and matrix lords, in by the back door.
Any valid argument can easily be rejected by doubting its premises. But that works both ways. You can nitpick the theists’ arguments by pointing out that their premises aren’t necessarily true, but they can do the same to you. For instance, atheists often assume that God must be highly complex (which is essentially the assumption that God must be natural) or that God must be visible to the senses, and so on. Theologians don’t define God that way, so they see those arguments as irrelevant.
What do you mean by natural? In order for God to be simple, his emotions must be denied or explained. For example, there could be some physics exploit by which an ancient human could become omnipotent. Another simple specification of God could be through an equation describing some goal-directed agent. Emotions might fall out of agency via game theory, except that game theory doesn’t really apply when you’re omnipotent. And what would be the goal? Our world doesn’t look like a simple goal is being maximized by a God.
Assuming that God is an anthropomorphic being with emotions is another way of assuming that God is natural. Some theists do think that way, but they are the easy target. The strongman versions of theism dont see God as a superhuman.
So Rationalists aren’t following their own rules about strongmanning, and are only addressing Judeo Christian conceits of God, and are only addressing unsophisticated, fundamentalist ideas, and are allowing other god-like entities, such as omegas and matrix lords, in by the back door.