The only two reasonable positions on the existence of God?

[ThePainefulTruth]

Atheism and Deism? From our standpoint, those two philosophies are indistinguishable. All others can be dismissed on the basis of reason/science since other theologies inevitably have to resort to faith (blind faith) to justify ignoring reason and logic.

[Cathar1950]

Atheism and Deism? From our standpoint, those two philosophies are indistinguishable. All others can be dismissed on the basis of reason/science since other theologies inevitably have to resort to faith (blind faith) to justify ignoring reason and logic.

I would like to put in my two cents as I have finally moved and have some space and time to jump back in.
I am on a mission to correct some of the metaphysical claims and understanding that seem to have little knowledge of the actual histories of philosophy and metaphysics.
By metaphysics I mean the quest for universals, or "the Universal", if that is the way it seems to roll along logically.
It isn't about presuppositions as they to are metaphysical questions and often must be teased out if not discovered or exposed. I had to smile when I heard the author of the OP was going to start from the conclusion and work his way backwards, it is sometimes called by one fallacy or another.
I admit that I have been actually studying, reading and even working on the subject of metaphysics one way or another for the last 35 yeas or more and I pretty much seem to have found myself as a process thinker or philosopher if you count studying philosophy in undergrad, grad and a couple of Doctorates as somewhat trained to be philosophical.
My favorite influences over the last 35 years or more were AN Whitehead and C Hartshorne. Hartshorne was the first I read that clearly stated the purpose of metaphysics which was to understand and find the Universal or what all particulars
have in common. He also called it Natural theology.

The first Christian theologian that Hartshorne claims to have had any metaphysical understanding about how this might all relate to theology or God talk was Anselm in his second definition of God where the existence of God is Necessary and Unsurpassable.
Hartshorne calls this insight a great discovery even though he sees Anselm's definition of God to be absurd.
The metaphysical alternatives are either some form of theism, and there are many or some form of positivism, these seem to exhaust the metaphysical alternatives, a least according to Hartshorne and others.
Deism is a subset of Theism as are Pantheism, Panentheism, Polytheism, Monotheism and Trinitarianism, just to name a few and there are variations within each label. As far as I see all you have to do to qualify as an atheist is to reject any or all gods and sometimes to even universals, while that might be more of a Positivist.

If there's a point in there, besides criticizing the OP for an unspecified logical fallacy, I don't see it. In fact you suffer from the appeal to authority fallacy because you don't make any points except to say that if A violates X, Y & Z's positions, then it's false. It isn't necessarily a fallacy except when you misuse is as you have here, mostly referring to them rather than their ideas. Better to put things in your own words.

As for mine, you're probably searching for the fallacy of Begging the Question where one is supposed to be presenting the conclusion then justifying it. It's a fine line between that, and offering a premise then inviting discussion pro or con, as I did. With revealed religion in the shambles it's in, there isn't much to contest it with but blind faith in hearsay. But it wasn't a closed mind that lead me away from Christianity/revealed religion, so if you do have something of substance, I'd like to hear it.

Actually what I had in mind was more of the fallacy of affirming the consequent.
The problem I see here is that belief isn't only blind faith as these things are conditioned and meet personal and social needs that tend to help us cooperate.
I was hardly appealing to authority, rather I was showing the sources of my understanding.
I question the idea that we ever see anything beginning to exist. We see change, that is conditioned events, but if we see it or perceive it, it already exists or better we are seeing what was up until now.
My point is that it isn't all about logic and reason as these too are our tools and creations. But like the ideas of chance and randomness they are useful in understanding and explaining events.
As for the existence of God or the Universal metaphysics is about that quest from the actual and concrete to he universal and abstract.
Modal logic looks at the temporal relationship between necessity, possible and actual.
It is only in the last 100 or 200 hundred years have we had he math or logic to look at these relationships. It seems to be showing us that the existence of God is either Necessary or Impossible but it tells us nothing about the actuality of God except that if case is that God exists the God must somehow be actualized and related to everything, God is not outside of time and space but that time and space are within God as God to be God would have to be all inclusive.
It seems to be all about what we can mean about God and a question of meaning that lacks contradiction and has relative value as does any actuality.

[McCulloch]

You know my own approach: You don't believe in God? Fine, so don't. It's not important. Neither belief nor unbelief have any "eternal consequences" -- belief or lack of it is a trivial matter.

Your particular view on this matter is in stark contrast with most of the Christian religions. Does that make them false religions in your eyes?

What ISN'T trivial is how one treats others.

Jesus said something to that effect.

"Theology" can be an interesting intellectual board game, but in practical terms, it's a waste of time and energy.

I like board games. I have 145 of them and 29 card games.

[cnorman18]

You know my own approach: You don't believe in God? Fine, so don't. It's not important. Neither belief nor unbelief have any "eternal consequences" -- belief or lack of it is a trivial matter.

Your particular view on this matter is in stark contrast with most of the Christian religions. Does that make them false religions in your eyes?

I think the part about going to Hell if you don't believe the right things is, shall we say, mistaken, yes. As for the rest -- well, as I've said often enough, I have no warrant for THAT. I don't claim to speak for God.

What ISN'T trivial is how one treats others.

Jesus said something to that effect.

Yes. Jesus was a Jew, after all. Almost all of his teachings (his, but not necessarily those of the people came after him, like Paul) came straight from the Hebrew Bible and Jewish tradition.

"Theology" can be an interesting intellectual board game, but in practical terms, it's a waste of time and energy.

I like board games. I have 145 of them and 29 card games.

I like them too -- I once taught a series of classes on game theory and design for gifted students, and I still have quite a few -- but games are entertainment and intellectual stimulation, not a way of life.

Well, not till World of Warcraft came along, at least, from what I've heard; but then, that kind of obsessive gaming probably started back in the 70s with D&D. (Did I ever tell you that I once played in a dungeon DMed by Gary Gygax himself?)

[wiploc]

Modal logic ... seems to be showing us that the existence of God is either Necessary or Impossible ...

It doesn't show that. That's just an assumption made at the beginning of the argument, a contrivance used to jump start an absurdity.

[Cephus]

Modal logic ... seems to be showing us that the existence of God is either Necessary or Impossible ...

It doesn't show that. That's just an assumption made at the beginning of the argument, a contrivance used to jump start an absurdity.

That's the problem with a lot of these "logical" arguments, they don't actually demonstrate anything, they just show how people can twist words around and define their preferred conclusion into existence. The idea that, because there is no actual, objective evidence for God, theists can string a bunch of words together into something that they think sounds reasonable, that's not evidence for God either, but that's why modern Christian apologetics, almost entirely, is philosophical, not scientific.

[ThePainefulTruth]

Modal logic ... seems to be showing us that the existence of God is either Necessary or Impossible ...

It doesn't show that. That's just an assumption made at the beginning of the argument, a contrivance used to jump start an absurdity.

That's the problem with a lot of these "logical" arguments, they don't actually demonstrate anything, they just show how people can twist words around and define their preferred conclusion into existence. The idea that, because there is no actual, objective evidence for God, theists can string a bunch of words together into something that they think sounds reasonable, that's not evidence for God either, but that's why modern Christian apologetics, almost entirely, is philosophical, not scientific.

I think you're doing a little word twisting yourself. There is no objective evidence for or against God--yet here is the universe which likewise has no objective evidence that even begins to explain it. All our knowledge is contained within this universe--theists and atheists notwithstanding.

[Cephus]

Modal logic ... seems to be showing us that the existence of God is either Necessary or Impossible ...

It doesn't show that. That's just an assumption made at the beginning of the argument, a contrivance used to jump start an absurdity.

That's the problem with a lot of these "logical" arguments, they don't actually demonstrate anything, they just show how people can twist words around and define their preferred conclusion into existence. The idea that, because there is no actual, objective evidence for God, theists can string a bunch of words together into something that they think sounds reasonable, that's not evidence for God either, but that's why modern Christian apologetics, almost entirely, is philosophical, not scientific.

I think you're doing a little word twisting yourself. There is no objective evidence for or against God--yet here is the universe which likewise has no objective evidence that even begins to explain it. All our knowledge is contained within this universe--theists and atheists notwithstanding.

There's no objective evidence against unicorns or leprechauns either but no one in their right mind expects there to be. Non-existent things don't leave evidence of their non-existence. Rational people only accept things for which there is actual, demonstrable, objective evidence that they are actually real. We have no reason to think that there is any such thing as the supernatural, it's all made up wishful nonsense without any objective support. All of our knowledge is indeed contained within this universe, but none of it points to anything magical or supernatural.

Let us know when theists manage to prove otherwise.

[ThePainefulTruth]

Modal logic ... seems to be showing us that the existence of God is either Necessary or Impossible ...

It doesn't show that. That's just an assumption made at the beginning of the argument, a contrivance used to jump start an absurdity.

That's the problem with a lot of these "logical" arguments, they don't actually demonstrate anything, they just show how people can twist words around and define their preferred conclusion into existence. The idea that, because there is no actual, objective evidence for God, theists can string a bunch of words together into something that they think sounds reasonable, that's not evidence for God either, but that's why modern Christian apologetics, almost entirely, is philosophical, not scientific.

I think you're doing a little word twisting yourself. There is no objective evidence for or against God--yet here is the universe which likewise has no objective evidence that even begins to explain it. All our knowledge is contained within this universe--theists and atheists notwithstanding.

There's no objective evidence against unicorns or leprechauns either but no one in their right mind expects there to be. Non-existent things don't leave evidence of their non-existence. Rational people only accept things for which there is actual, demonstrable, objective evidence that they are actually real. We have no reason to think that there is any such thing as the supernatural, it's all made up wishful nonsense without any objective support. All of our knowledge is indeed contained within this universe, but none of it points to anything magical or supernatural.

Let us know when theists manage to prove otherwise.

As usual, the argument is against the theism of revealed religion, the easy target. And that unicorn argument is so tired. God would be Truth whatever form that might be, even the absurd pink unicorn, as opposed to nothing.

The only thing we have to explain is the universe, for which there is not the first tidbit of evidence. The only question is whether the force that created it is conscious, or not. It's surprising, though maybe it shouldn't be, that the Big Bang is such a perfectly efficient firewall.

[Ooberman]

Modal logic ... seems to be showing us that the existence of God is either Necessary or Impossible ...

It doesn't show that. That's just an assumption made at the beginning of the argument, a contrivance used to jump start an absurdity.

That's the problem with a lot of these "logical" arguments, they don't actually demonstrate anything, they just show how people can twist words around and define their preferred conclusion into existence. The idea that, because there is no actual, objective evidence for God, theists can string a bunch of words together into something that they think sounds reasonable, that's not evidence for God either, but that's why modern Christian apologetics, almost entirely, is philosophical, not scientific.

I think you're doing a little word twisting yourself. There is no objective evidence for or against God--yet here is the universe which likewise has no objective evidence that even begins to explain it. All our knowledge is contained within this universe--theists and atheists notwithstanding.

There is one big, glaring bit of evidence for the nonexistence of gods: there is no evidence for gods.

It's the first bit of evidence we'd expect if something didn't exist.

In fact, it's the only thing we'd expect if something didn't exist - and then we could also predict a bunch of people believing in it anyhow.

[ThePainefulTruth]

[Replying to post 69 by Ooberman]

It's the first bit of evidence we'd expect if something didn't exist.

Unless God designed things so there'd be no evidence for It's existence. The biggest trap in this question is continuing to think in terms of an interactive god that the revealed religions exploit and atheists concentrate on debunking. Don't think in terms of whether God exists or not, but in terms of the only two options available--God being a pink unicorn (as some Psych 101 professors have foisted on their unsuspecting charges) notwithstanding.