God can have an identity. The same way the invisible pink unicorn or the flying spaghetti monster can. It is just invalid and contradictory or metaphorical. Faith is the absence of reason as god is the absence of noncontradictory concrete identity (which a thing needs to exist). What god that you know of possibly or can imagine has a valid identity that is not made up of contradiction or metaphor, that is not also simply just something else logical that we already have a name for, like 'alien'? To exist, a thing must have an identity in reality. If it does not interface with reality, then it does not exist, in reality. And there is nothing outside of reality. There is nothing outside of everything that exists. To exist, a thing must be some things and not others, lest it would have no meaning or substance to be validly called existent. It is impossible for a leaf to melt and freeze at the same time. Or a plant to grow backwards. Or to be all red or all green at the same time. These cannot happen because they violate the law of identity. If contradictions were able to manifest, our system of how we turn subjective perceptions into objective concepts and how we verify learned concepts by integrating them into a knowledge-base could not work.
No one is disputing the possibility of an powerful species of alien having sufficiently advanced technology as to appear as if it is god-like, but this is very different from actually being a god. Fancy technology, although cool, is not supernatural or contradictory to nature. And if you suddenly are faced with a bright light from above and suddenly find yourself transported to another planet or even local expansion of space-time, rest most assuredly, it cannot be a god, it's only an alien.
The local scientific community does not give out Nobel Peace Prizes. They do that in Stockholm and Oslo. And this is not a scientific issue, but an epistemological one. God violates more basic fundamental epistemological principles that you need for reason and science to work.
TIME magazine, please. Besides, on the subject, they likely only publish phantasmagorical new-age mumbo-jumbo of the eternal skeptic type. So that everyone can hold hands and talk about how tolerant of each others' cultures and mystical ideas they are. I find the reference section more interesting and enlightening.
OK, let me see if I understand what you say.
"To exist, a thing must have an identity in reality."
Is that true? For example, an atom, or a germ, or bacteria, did not have an identity until humans had the means to see it, even as they saw the effect of them. Is it the reality or the perception of reality that matters. Or, if we can see a reality, let us say lightning, it is a reality, but the energy cannot be used until humans have a perception of lightning as a source of electrical energy and learns how to control and predict its use.
"If it does not interface with reality, then it does not exist, in reality."
If human beings, with their many senses, do not exist, then does water, soil, air, or fire exist?
So, if the unseeable to humans, or no humans to see, exist, and god does exist, how can one know?
or if god does not exist, how can one know? Therefore, it makes sense to know there is no god until and unless evidence presents itself.
Those who believe god exists give anecdotal evidence that cannot stand up to reason, but can and does stand up to emotion. Therefore, does emotion count in this reality?
Replace 'identity' by 'information content' as from Shannon and Hawking. I think that's what he means. Might've meant something else.
But what about? We agree on gnostic atheism and for the same reason. The possibility of god is not reasonable.
On phrasing the existential argument against god to counter the abused "can't know the unknowable". Start by putting limits and boundaries on the unknown. The overall goal is to make impotent such 'beyond comprehension' arguments along the lines of how quantum physicists are reducing error due to Heisenberg by 'squeezing' the probability distribution, as predicted by the 'Heisenberg Compensator' of Star Trek:TNG.
Do I understand what you wrote? "Beyond comprehension" is getting smaller and smaller because of quantum physics?
Assuming the total amount of knowledge is a finite amount, and assuming quantum physics is in fact a correct theory, then yes - that makes perfect sense. However, I think right now we don't know what we don't know, and the more we learn, the more we realize how much we don't know. Which is a perfect place to be for scientists :)
ABSOLUTELY! Living in the question is a whole lot more interesting than living in the answer.
No and yes. It's the 'limits and boundaries on the unknown' that makes it smaller. The 'Heisenberg Compensator' was a metaphor but QM per se has nothing to do with the matter.
I think it requires a certain level of faith to be atheist, which is why I'm agnostic.
Atheism is a rejection of theism at it's core is it not? But do to mankind's current limitation in technology and science, a lack of some sort of higher being cannot be conclusively tested by the scientific method. Therefore, there is no proof making Atheism just as much a faith as any religion because it requires a belief in something without proof.
Frankly, I love atheists because I think as a whole, they're more logical than the religious. They also generally support the sciences more, thereby helping us all move further. But we have to all keep in mind that it's OK to keep an open mind, especially when we converse with our religious friends. If we come across as arrogant know-it-alls then we discourage people from the ideals of the non-theist.