PaulSacramento wrote:To address the original issue with this:
It is quite logical to state an absolute positive: White swans exists.
The reason is obvious since all one needs to do is show that even ONE white swans exists.
To state an absolute negative, there is no god, would require infinite knowledge of all since you are stating that NO GOD exists as a fact.
Now, you can't justify this by stating that it is only a belief unless:
Atheism is a belief system that is NOT based on reason and facts ( since reason and facts show that you can't make an absolute negative statement). That is why people that understand the issue with atheism are agnostic.
Atheism is not logical or reasonable.
Now, once you understand that you can begin to understand why agnosticism, while intellectually more honest, is more of a statement of "ignorance" than anything else.
There are two types of agnostic:
The one that states that IF there is a God, It is SO BEYOND our ability to understand that we should bother.
The other states that he simply does not know and see no evidence for God.
IT is this one that simply needs to learn what classical theism really yes and not what they THINK it is.
Why does it require
infinite knowledge to state that God doesn't exist? I don't understand the reason behind the
infinite part. How do you come to that?
Suppose humanity survives another 1000 years, with everincreasing technology and knowledge (I doubt we have infinite knowledge by then), do you think we still can't answer whether God does or does not exist?
How about 10000 years? Or more?
If I understand you correctly, you state that atheism is illogical and agnosticism is ignorance, thus both 'dead ends', meaning that only theism makes sense?
Or, do you mean with "Why I am not an Atheist", that you could be an Agnost?