# Atheists have more faith **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 20, 2006, 1:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-have-more-faith/373406 "2006-09-20T13:08:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2006, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-have-more-faith/373406/101 "2006-09-20T21:57:38Z")
[QUOTE=Apos] I think his reasoning is sound. You can’t have knowledge of the truth of agnostic claim in the first place without having some knowledge of the characteristics of God: that’s just a dodge. The basic problem is this: you don’t know your full capabilities of knowledge, because you clearly do not know everything. Likewise, if you yourself admit that you don’t understand or know God, then how can you ever possibly conclude that the two UNKNOWN areas of your capability and the knowledge of God do not somewhere overlap? You can’t drag such a strong positive conclusion about knowledge out of a position that itself insists on such a high degree of ignorance and uncertainty! [/quote] However, the impossibility of knowing whether god exists does not imply that you do not know some of the characteristics common to any god. I’d submit that “creator of the universe” is one. An agnotic who claims the existence of god is not knowable does not have to claim that any particular characteristic (such as knowability) is not knowable. Let’s consider a god with two characteristics - creator of the universe, and not knowable. This is kind of a deistic god. I’d say that I’d agree that this god is not knowable, since events before the creation will forever be hidden from us. We don’t know if a god did or did not create the universe (and thus exist) but we do know that this god will be forever unknowable. I think this is consistent, and shows Smith’s argument fails. Of course most gods we consider have more characteristics that would make them potentially knowable, which is my problem. So I agree with Smith that agnosticism is not a tenable position, but not for his reasons. > [@](#): > > You’ll have to remind me of his exact argument, because I don’t remember anything in this particular vein done for that purpose. He wrote this book quite a long time ago in terms of physics, but even so, physics, as far as I know, has not really established much of anything about the actual existence or start of the universe. In general, we talk about the BB or even a singularity as being “the start” of the universe, but it’s not really: it’s the start of the particular arrangement of the sort of universe and timescale we are familiar with. And given that time too contracts towards a singularity, we’re left with something akin to an eternity in a moment rather than a beginning IN time. I have the book at home, and I’ll look it up if I have time. But I am pretty sure it is not the “time begins at t=0” argument, which does make sense. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2006, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-have-more-faith/373406/102 "2006-09-20T22:02:59Z")
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] I think the word “impossible” is used situationally rather than absolutely. It is impossible _with only the data we have right now_ to know if God exists. It doesn’t disallow the theoretical possibility that more data could become available but just recognizes we don’t have the data _at this time_, and no particularly strong reason to believe that situation is ever likely to change. That’s how I read it anyway. [/QUOTE] That’s an interesting explanation, but kind of weak. I think most reasonable people, theist, atheist, or agnostic, would agree that we don’t have sufficient evidence to “prove” god’s existence now. But it is kind of odd for someone to say “I say it is impossible to determine if god exists. Ooh - there is Valhalla in the clouds - it is now possible to say that god exists.” It doesn’t ring true, but it’s the best explanation Ive heard yet. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2006, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-have-more-faith/373406/103 "2006-09-20T22:09:23Z")
[QUOTE=Voyager] Let’s consider a god with two characteristics - creator of the universe, and not knowable. This is kind of a deistic god. I’d say that I’d agree that this god is not knowable, since events before the creation will forever be hidden from us. [/quote] See, but right there you are slipping in the “knowledge of the unknowable” problem. We DON’T know anything about “events prior to the creation” or understand this area of knowledge at all. We don’t know if it is really in our capability to know or not, because we cannot ever fully define those boundaries. So how can we possibly conclude that we can’t know anything about it and that it will be forever hidden from you? Likewise, your claim that we must be able see into the creation of the universe to know the existence of this god ends up having to define all sorts of other elements about what that god will and won’t do in making itself apparent or known to human beings. None of those can themselves be justified unless you have far far more knowledge of this being than you are claiming. > [@](#): > > We don’t know if a god did or did not create the universe (and thus exist) but we do know that this god will be forever unknowable. Smith’s retort is simple: no, you DON’T know that. How could you? How can complete ignorance of something EVER turn into a “knowing” certainty about some sub-element of it? ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2006, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-have-more-faith/373406/104 "2006-09-20T22:58:48Z")
[QUOTE=MEBuckner] That’s why I specified “scientific” creationists–that particular group of creationists who claim that, really, the fossils and the rocks actually show that Earth is 10,000 years old, tops, and there was a universal flood, but them pointy-headed secular humanist scientists just hate God so they cover this up. This is the equivalent of saying I must have just overlooked the six-inch-high six-armed elephant-headed blue deity in my cabinet when I went to look for it. [/QUOTE] I would still say for that case that God may just be playing with the pointy-headed secular humanist scientists by leaving false evidence. But thinking about your overall point, I agree that there probably are very specific definitions for deities which can be falsified and whom “denying” wouldn’t be silly. But, atheism doesn’t believe in **any** deity, not just some particular one, so pointing out that there are falsifiable gods doesn’t really mean much so long as there are gods and fairy tales who aren’t falsifiable. Certain parts of the mythology–assuming you give any credence to worldly, empirical evidence–one might be able to disprove. For instance, we can show that there isn’t a Santa’s Workshp at the North Pole. But depending on how much of a Santa literalist you are, that could simply just mean that “the North Pole of the books of Santa isn’t in any form mankind can understand.” So I agree that you are technically correct, but it doesn’t seem very relevant to the discussion of “strong atheism” as I understand it. I.e. that they think there is enough evidence to disprove **all** deities known or unknown. ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2006, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-have-more-faith/373406/105 "2006-09-20T23:10:45Z")
[QUOTE=Mangetout] So whereabouts are we going to store the faith that each and every one of these objects are nonexistent? [/QUOTE] It’s not clear to me if you’re asking a rhetorical question here, but if you aren’t, I’d say it’s not possible to have such faith, and not necessary. In principle, one might be forced to consider and evaluate that infinity of impossible things an infinity of others might assert are both possible and true before they’re to come to an honest and well-informed conclusion about the whole God matter. Given even a finite list of claims about a finite number of purported beings with infinite qualities does, I think, put one in the position of having to consider this. A rational person recognizes they can’t do that and goes about their business not troubling over infinitely laborious tasks. I don’t know how to characterize a person who considers the matter settled when they haven’t completed that infinite task. ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2006, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-have-more-faith/373406/106 "2006-09-20T23:50:04Z")
There is one thing I might have faith in, which I did come to be forced to acknowledge here on the Dope. I’m not really sure if I can characterize it as “faith”, since I feel rather forced into it by having no ability to safely test alternatives, but it might be correct to, we’ll see, if this warrants discussion. I have “faith” that you, dear reader, exist. I’m willing to take that tremendous leap into the blue and operate under the assumption I’m not dreaming it all up. By “all” I mean the universe, which is there whether I am conscious of it or not, and with me as but a tiny portion of it. I don’t think, at any rate, that this is _more_ faith than your average theist has. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2006, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-have-more-faith/373406/107 "2006-09-21T00:41:29Z")
[QUOTE=Loopydude] There is one thing I might have faith in, which I did come to be forced to acknowledge here on the Dope. I’m not really sure if I can characterize it as “faith”, since I feel rather forced into it by having no ability to safely test alternatives, but it might be correct to, we’ll see, if this warrants discussion. I have “faith” that you, dear reader, exist. I’m willing to take that tremendous leap into the blue and operate under the assumption I’m not dreaming it all up. By “all” I mean the universe, which is there whether I am conscious of it or not, and with me as but a tiny portion of it. I don’t think, at any rate, that this is _more_ faith than your average theist has. [/QUOTE] That’s not faith; it’s Occam’s Razor. Assuming an external universe explains so many things, so simply. Why do our thoughts not affect the world directly ? Why is the world consistant ? Why are their parts I can’t understand ? Why does acting on the assumption of an external world _work_ ? And so on. Assuming an external world of _some_ sort is simply simpler than assuming it’s all a hallucination. ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2006, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-have-more-faith/373406/108 "2006-09-21T00:57:18Z")
Yeah, but simpler isn’t necessarily correct. It’s a pretty good hint or guideline, but that’s it, and that’s all Occam’s razor provides. ---
**Author:** ![Taber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ac91a4/32.png) [@Taber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Taber)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2006, 7:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-have-more-faith/373406/109 "2006-09-21T07:35:16Z")
[QUOTE=Apos] I’m not one, but I’ll raise this point: in George Smith’s classic atheist book, he makes the case against strong agnosticism thusly: Strong atheists hold that it is impossible to know God (and hence anything about God or its characteristics). However, knowability IS a characteristic of something. By the strong agnostic’s own admission, they can’t possibly know whether or not God is knowable, which leads to a contradiction. They can claim that knowability is the one knowable characteristic of God, but this smacks of special pleading and they cannot justify why or how this would be, or how they would know it. Therefore, strong agnosticism is untenable as a rationally supported position, and only weaker forms of agnoticism (the “_I_ don’t know” sort) really make much sense. [/QUOTE] I think that this might be a misrepresentation of the strong Agnostic position. If the strong Agnostic position was truly that it is impossible to know any of God’s characteristics, then it would have been disproven a long time ago. For example, I know god isn’t a small blue elephant in my sock drawer, as I have looked in my sock drawer, and saw no blue elephants. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2006, 7:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-have-more-faith/373406/110 "2006-09-21T07:39:35Z")
[QUOTE=Loopydude] It’s not clear to me if you’re asking a rhetorical question here, but if you aren’t, I’d say it’s not possible to have such faith, and not necessary. In principle, one might be forced to consider and evaluate that infinity of impossible things an infinity of others might assert are both possible and true before they’re to come to an honest and well-informed conclusion about the whole God matter. Given even a finite list of claims about a finite number of purported beings with infinite qualities does, I think, put one in the position of having to consider this. A rational person recognizes they can’t do that and goes about their business not troubling over infinitely laborious tasks. I don’t know how to characterize a person who considers the matter settled when they haven’t completed that infinite task. [/QUOTE] My point was that it is ridiculous to define faith in such a way (as the OP does) that you have to have faith in the non-existence of things that are complementary to the things we know or in which we do believe; we simply do not have the capacity to do it. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2006, 7:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-have-more-faith/373406/111 "2006-09-21T07:58:30Z")
[QUOTE=Apos] See, but right there you are slipping in the “knowledge of the unknowable” problem. We DON’T know anything about “events prior to the creation” or understand this area of knowledge at all. We don’t know if it is really in our capability to know or not, because we cannot ever fully define those boundaries. So how can we possibly conclude that we can’t know anything about it and that it will be forever hidden from you? Likewise, your claim that we must be able see into the creation of the universe to know the existence of this god ends up having to define all sorts of other elements about what that god will and won’t do in making itself apparent or known to human beings. None of those can themselves be justified unless you have far far more knowledge of this being than you are claiming. [/quote] Maybe it wasn’t clear, since I left out the word “only,” that the god I was discussing had only two characteristics - knowability and universe creation. Now, there are good reasons for thinking we cannot see before the creation of the universe which have nothing to do with theology. An agnostic would say that this god is unknowable, since we cannot determine whether or not he created the universe. This has nothing to do with the unknowable characteristic. In fact, an agnostic may say he doesn’t know if god is inherently unknowable, but just that he is because of the creation characteristic. Now, our god has a lot more characteristics than this, and as I said I agree that I don’t see why he would be unknowable. (Any being that cannot make himself known can hardly be supreme, and is therefore not a god.) So, I agree with Smith’s conclusion, not his proof. My copy seems to have vanished in the chaos of my library rearrangement - if I find it I’ll post the reference. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2006, 8:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-have-more-faith/373406/112 "2006-09-21T08:03:02Z")
[QUOTE=Sage Rat] So I agree that you are technically correct, but it doesn’t seem very relevant to the discussion of “strong atheism” as I understand it. I.e. that they think there is enough evidence to disprove **all** deities known or unknown. [/QUOTE] In many years of cruising various newsgroups and message boards, including alt.atheism, I don’t think I’ve ever met an atheist who thinks this. Have a cite for someone who does? I’m a bit sensitive about this, since I used to think that strong atheists claimed to know that gods don’t exist (weaker than being able to prove it) until someone pointed out to me that it was a matter of belief, not knowlege. Believing no gods exist is far more rational than claiming to be able to prove it. ---
**Author:** ![sinjin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ebca7d/32.png) [@sinjin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sinjin)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2006, 10:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-have-more-faith/373406/113 "2006-09-21T10:15:49Z")
There’s a blogger that I read that calls himself the Slacktivist. He was writing about pre and post millenialism a few weeks ago. Premillenialism is the idea that Jesus will come and the world will end and a thousand year (that’s the millenial bit) reign of Christ. These are the rapture folks. Postmillenialism is the idea that the reign of Jesus will come after 1000 years of peace on Earth and goodwill toward man. Amillenialism is neither. It’s all just a bunch of random stuff from Revelation that is supposed to be a metaphor. Now, the blogger makes the following analagy: [Link.](http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2006/09/opposites_attra_1.html) > [@](#): > > Discussion of such categories can be a bit misleading. Prophecy enthusiasts tend to obsess over the dispute between pre- and post- millennial views. This is a bit like trying to divide the world into two factions based on whether they side with Dean or Logan as Rory’s ideal love interest. While it’s true that several million people may indeed A) watch Gilmore Girls and also B) have a strong opinion about such matters, most people don’t and so can’t be forced into either of these factions. Such people might be categorized as a third faction, “a-Roryists,” but this overstates their investment in the topic. I think that for a lot of people, atheism is a bit like aroryism. I don’t stay up at night wondering whether gods exist and if I should believe in them or not and which ones I should believe in and how much to believe or not believe. Should I give the next person with crucifix jewelry a dirty look or is a self-satisfied smirk sufficient? I just don’t care one way or the other. It’s just off my radar in the same way that Dean and Logan are. I don’t believe that Rory should try to have a deep and meaningful relationship with Logan but neither do I believe that she shouldn’t.\* I have no belief either way. I’m not ambivalent because there is no force. I’m completely apathetic. sinjin [Footnote: Actually, I think that given the choice she should go with Dean. This is based completely off of names. Logan is a stupid name. His parents should be punished for saddling their son with such a stupid appellation. And the punishment should be the end of their line. No grandchildren to inherit their goods. No, the Logan family tree will have no further branches or leaves. It ends now. If we’re not careful we’ll end up with bouncing little boys and girls names O’Hare or Dulles. Perish the thought…] ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2006, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-have-more-faith/373406/114 "2006-09-21T17:47:09Z")
[QUOTE=Voyager] Maybe it wasn’t clear, since I left out the word “only,” that the god I was discussing had only two characteristics - knowability and universe creation. [/quote] Oh, I recognized the only, and it is precisely the “only” that is the problem. You can’t possibly know the “knowability” of a creator god if you don’t know any of its other characteristics (like, for instance, whether or not it’s an amatuer filmmaker that filmed its creation of the universe and enjoys showing it to friends like us). There are bajillions of other possible characteristics that would make it knowable. How could you possibly rule them all out if “creator” is the only one you know? That’s exactly Smith’s point. > [@](#): > > Now, there are good reasons for thinking we cannot see before the creation of the universe which have nothing to do with theology. What are they? Remember, our knowledge is incomplete: perhaps woefully incomplete. It’s one thing to demonstrate why, under our current scenario and technology, knowing something might be hard or even seemingly impossible in practice, that we know of. But that is a FAR cry from being able to say you KNOW that something is philosophically fundamentally beyond the scope of knowledge. For all we know, there may be “portholes” floating around in deep space which are timeless windows back onto the Big Bang and “before.” We can’t rule anything out, philosophically, that is possible but simply as of yet unknown. > [@](#): > > An agnostic would say that this god is unknowable, since we cannot determine whether or not he created the universe. How can they know we can’t though? Again, this is exactly the issue: how do you gain knowledge about whether or not something is knowable when a) you don’t really understand it and b) your knowledge of your OWN capacity for knowing things is admittedly incomplete? Again, think of two circles, one encompassing the knowledge of how the universe began, and the other encompassing what can be known. When you MUST admit that you do not know where the boundaries of those circles are, how can you then claim that you KNOW they don’t overlap!!? > [@](#): > > This has nothing to do with the unknowable characteristic. Then how is that characteristic known in the first place? Is it taken on faith? If that’s simply part of the definition of god, then that’s one thing. But that’s not the position taken by most theists (remember, agnostics are insisting that they should remain neutral on the subject because they DISAGREE with theists about this very characteristic, and thus they have to have some arguement for it, rather than just defining God as haivng it) > [@](#): > > In fact, an agnostic may say he doesn’t know if god is inherently unknowable, but just that he is because of the creation characteristic. Then you’re basically back to weak agnosticism again, which, as I said, is perfectly viable. The problem is simply this: you cannot KNOW that an existing something is unknowable. Doing so assumes far far too much. ---
**Author:** ![Stalky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b782af/32.png) [@Stalky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stalky)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2006, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-have-more-faith/373406/115 "2006-09-21T19:29:22Z")
Good thread. I’ve appreciated the time an effort put into the discussion here and it’s helped me to define my own position more effectively, as well as understanding the common mistakes that other people make when lumping a group like athiests, agnostics or theists together. Might I just add that at the end of the day it seems like the whole existance of God/epistimology debate seems like a pretty fruitless human practice and I think we should get back to breeding monkeys with dinosaurs and other more quantifiable scientific endevours. Good day. ---
**Author:** ![panache45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/panache45/32/64_2.png) [@panache45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panache45)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2006, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-have-more-faith/373406/116 "2006-09-21T20:01:19Z")
[QUOTE=newcrasher] I believe no one can lightly choose to be an atheist. I would hope it would be a decision to which they have given alot of thought. [/QUOTE] Yeah, I used to think this too. At the age of 14-15, I stopped believing in a supreme being. I did a lot of reading, and a lot more thinking, and concluded that I just don’t have any reason to believe in a God. And throughout high school, I wore a sort of badge of honor, that I had the courage and intellectual integrity to challenge several millennia of religious propaganda. Then I went to college, and met a girl who was an atheist. Here, I thought, is a kindred spirit; someone who, like me, has rigorously examined her conscience and taken a stand against the mindless conformity of the sheep who accepted whatever ideas they passively encountered. So I asked her at what age she had thrown off the shackles of conformity, and proudly proclaimed her atheism to the world. She replied, “Well, I dunno. My parents are both atheists, and I kinda never really thought about it.” ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2006, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-have-more-faith/373406/117 "2006-09-21T20:09:12Z")
[QUOTE=Apos] What are they? Remember, our knowledge is incomplete: perhaps woefully incomplete. It’s one thing to demonstrate why, under our current scenario and technology, knowing something might be hard or even seemingly impossible in practice, that we know of. But that is a FAR cry from being able to say you KNOW that something is philosophically fundamentally beyond the scope of knowledge. For all we know, there may be “portholes” floating around in deep space which are timeless windows back onto the Big Bang and “before.” We can’t rule anything out, philosophically, that is possible but simply as of yet unknown. [/quote] We can’t get information through the singularity. By definition, the singularity is everything at t= 0, so no wormholes either. > [@](#): > > How can they know we can’t though? Again, this is exactly the issue: how do you gain knowledge about whether or not something is knowable when a) you don’t really understand it and b) your knowledge of your OWN capacity for knowing things is admittedly incomplete? Again, think of two circles, one encompassing the knowledge of how the universe began, and the other encompassing what can be known. When you MUST admit that you do not know where the boundaries of those circles are, how can you then claim that you KNOW they don’t overlap!!? > > Then how is that characteristic known in the first place? Is it taken on faith? You don’t have to assign a value to that characteristic - which is exactly the point. Let me try again (I was a bit sleepy last night, so my repeat is because of my poor construction, and doesn’t imply any lack of understanding on your part.) We’ve got this god with two characteristics - universe creation and knowability. Because of the singularity, we know that we could never know for sure if any deity did create the universe - we might observe him at time t = epsilon, but even if he claims to have created the universe, maybe he got created first, and had nothing to do with it. (for example God in Brust’s _To Reign in Hell_.) Now how about the unknowability characteristic. We can’t resolve that one one way or another. Saying that God is inherently unknowable does not conflict with the state of unknowability we see, since this refers to the knowability of gods existence, not to his properties. Let me illustrate that by backing up to a god with more characteristics. Theist or atheist will agree that mortals can never fully know all the properties of god. However both of us, not being strong agnostics, feel that we can know that God exists based on sufficient evidence. So we can know about the existence of god while not knowing some of the properties. Conversely, we know that God is all powerful and immortal, and can know that these are characteristics of a hypothetical god even if we don’t acknowledge that we can ever know if this hypothetical god exists or not. So, saying god is unknowable assigns a value to the unknowability characteristic, but this is not a contradiction since claiming that god is unknowable does not imply all his characteristics are unknowable - which is Smith’s assumption. I hope that is a bit clearer. If that’s simply part of the definition of god, then that’s one thing. But that’s not the position taken by most theists (remember, agnostics are insisting that they should remain neutral on the subject because they DISAGREE with theists about this very characteristic, and thus they have to have some arguement for it, rather than just defining God as haivng it) Then you’re basically back to weak agnosticism again, which, as I said, is perfectly viable. The problem is simply this: you cannot KNOW that an existing something is unknowable. Doing so assumes far far too much. [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2006, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-have-more-faith/373406/118 "2006-09-21T20:28:49Z")
> [@](#): > > We can’t get information through the singularity. By definition, the singularity is everything at t= 0, so no wormholes either. You’re just playing a game here: defining things such that there is no creation of the universe to observe. Such objections are pointless. You don’t know that the portals I describe are actually impossible, or whether the definitions even make sense (certainly, if anything is outside the universe, then the singularity is NOT “everything” at all). We don’t know how universes begin, or what’s outside of them or what we can can observe about them via means we have yet to even imagine. You are acting like a scientist in the realm of philosophy and possibility, which is far far broader. To claim that something is unknowable is a far far stronger claim than the claim that it is not known, or even that in a practical sense, there is no reason to think you or I in particular have the means to know it. If the universe has no beginning or creation, then there is nothing to know, and hence it isn’t “unknowable” (and God is impossible). If there is, then you, who admit that you know nothing about it, have no grounds to insist that nothing can ever be known about it. How can you? You don’t know its nature or its implications. They could be manifold. There could be an entire dimension of information streams as yet undiscovered, or a million other unlikely possibilities. There could be an entire epistemology of knowledge as yet undiscovered. You can object that all of that is farfetched, but unfortunately, all are perfectly valid counter-examples to the claims of a strong agnostic. It was the strong agnostic, after all, that raised the issue of fundamental certain unknowability. > [@](#): > > So, saying god is unknowable assigns a value to the unknowability characteristic, but this is not a contradiction since claiming that god is unknowable does not imply all his characteristics are unknowable - which is Smith’s assumption. Smith’s assumption is that to know that something: whether it be God, or even a characteristic of God, is unknowable, you would first have to know it, thus being able to see that it is outside the scope of what can be known (which, remember, you keep forgetting is itself NOT FULLY KNOWN). You can’t do that: it’s incoherent. Again, he seems quite straightforwardly correct on this. ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2006, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-have-more-faith/373406/119 "2006-09-21T21:39:34Z")
Technically speaking, a singularity of any sort is undefined, for example the way the value of 1/0 is undefined. Discussing the “beginning” of the universe at a singularity (which General Relativity predicts if you extrapolate backwards) is paradoxical, because any expression of a moment in time presupposes time. Changes in zero dimension give you rates equalling something over zero, which, again, is undefined. It’s meaningless. ---
**Author:** ![wonder9](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c57346/32.png) [@wonder9](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonder9)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2006, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-have-more-faith/373406/120 "2006-09-23T01:49:37Z")
[QUOTE many athiests find that once they’ve accepted that there is no god, they at last find peace.[/QUOTE] [irony]Can I hear an Amen?[/irony] I have peace. What could a belief in a god add to that? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-have-more-faith/373406.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-have-more-faith/373406.md?page=7)