@Michael,would this be a fair summary of your position:
a) existing wholly in reality is a necessary requirement of Existence
b) Being subject to the laws of physics is necessary inside of a physically governed universe
c) Definitions of God often consider God to be a transcendental entity
d) Definitions that don't consider God to Transcend the physical would make the entity subject to all physical laws by being existent in this reality.
therefore, transcendent Gods necessarily do not exist, and physical Gods have no powers that are not physically possible and therefore achievable by any highly technological species, therefore making them beings and not gods.
ok. hopefully more rather than less, I wouldn't want to be pushing you into being a straw man here!
I'm still concerned that the inherent problems with empiricism come into this, which was one of my original problems with going Gnostic.
Point B "Being subject to the laws of physics is necessary inside of a physically governed universe". I would propose this is not deduced like points a, c, d. This is based on empirical observations? Our understanding that everything follows physical laws is based on observations of things following physical laws, in actual fact there are things that our current models don't explain, and theoretical things like dark matter have to be used to make theories work in practice. We may get to a point where we can explain everything, but I'm not sure that will negate the one underlying flaw with empiricism: that we cannot be 100% certain that thing will continue to act as they have in the past.
Is there an argument for empiricism that makes it 100% reliable? am I wrong needing empiricism for this premise?
@leveni (to continue where the reply threads have run out)
Agnosticism and gnosticism should never have been brought up in atheism in the first place.
evidence of existence = knowledge of existence
imaginary concepts = two camps: agnostic belief and gnostic belief. two methods of "knowing" the imaginary, or unevidenced.
The very existence of agnostic atheists is a fallacy in itself. Anyone who has any portion of their brain that accepts a god concept is not an atheist. They are simply infinitely weak theists. Of course it serves the aims of politicians to lump together agnostics with atheists. But I disagree fundamentally with that assertion. Atheists live in the real, agnostics reserve a space for the unreal.
Thanks for the reply. Especially:
Uncertainty = contradictory evidence.
God = no evidence, there is no uncertainty there
Leveni and TNT666,
I agree with TNT that you can assert that you are some combination of a/gnosticism and a/theism, but you will not necessarily make good sense. I was trying to define these words, as I think appropriate, as the first group being related to a belief in knowledge of a thing and the second, a belief in the existence of a thing. If you will only define gnosticism as it relates to faith, then I guess, we will not agree on the fact that I believe one who is gnostic has a proper affirmative belief that knowledge of a certain thing is possible. And I disagree with TNT that we cannot be gnostic about a negative. I believe that I can be certain (gnostic) that it is impossible for any god to exist (atheist). The way I understand agnosticism is that it describes someone who believes that knowledge one way or another is possible. I believe I can come up with reasons why every other combination of these terms, other than gnostic atheism, is invalid. Any belief in any god, whether certain or not, is flat out wrong. And asserting that we cannot have knowledge as to whether or not God exists, while believing that He doesn't, or agnostic atheism, is also wrong.