So what was the answer, then ... and the big "solution"?
From post #199 ...
1. no evidence
2. no universal conception
3. doesn't matter/don't care
These seem to be the overwhelmingly predominant "arguments" for atheism.
No. 1. is only a significant point if there were a logical expectation of their being evidence, and we humans were logically expected to be able to identify it as such. I have pointed this out to many an atheist here and elsewhere over the years, and have as yet received no logical reason that we should expect either of these conditions. And yet in spite of this revelation, they inevitably walk away repeating to themselves and everyone else that no evidence is their evidence. Proving to me, at least, that logic and reason are not the intellectual mechanisms by which many atheists become atheist.
No. 2. also relies on a couple of presumptions that are not logically or even reasonably sound. One such presumption is that if God exists, we humans would be universally able to conceptualize the nature and manner of that existence. Yet being that God is generally considered to be the source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is, and we humans clearly do not yet possess the capacity for understanding this ultimate fundament of existence, I don't see how we could be logically expected to conceptualize it accurately, or universally. These same atheists do not expect scientists to all agree on the origin or conceptualization of the physical universe, and yet they for some odd reason expect theists to all hold the same understanding of God. And yet again, when this blatant double-standard is pointed out to them, they simply walk away repeating their complaint as if reason and hypocrisy were of no consequence to them, at all.
No. 3. I can at least accept for it's honesty, if not necessarily for it's basis in logic. If, from the human perspective, God's nature and existence is not discernible, then why should we waste time trying? And that's a valid question if the premise is true. And the premise is clearly true in terms of our gaining any clear understanding of the nature and existence of God. And the premise would also be true if there were no advantage to be gained for humanity by trying in spite of the difficulty. But although these points are partly true, they are not entirely true. And especially not entirely true for all of us, all the time. Humanity does gain some understanding of this great mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is by our seeking. How accurate that understanding is, is certainly debatable. As it should be. And some of our presumed understanding of the 'god-mystery' is bound to be quite wrong. Yet there are some universal common ideals, and they do bear reasoned consideration (as opposed to a blanket dismissal).
Also, a great many humans do find significant and positive value in the process of contemplating the nature and character of this 'god-mystery'. So much so that even though their conceptualizations of God are constantly changing over time, and even though many of these conceptual characterizations disagree with each other, we humans still develop and pursue them in earnest. A huge majority of us, in fact. And again, these may all or nearly all be wrong, but the universality of this desire is overwhelming, and therefor not to be taken lightly, and dismissed out of hand. To do so may be a legitimate choice, ... but it's not a particularly wise one.
What the atheist arguments all seem to boil down to is resentment based on lack of control. If the atheist can't understand this god-mystery fully, and obviously; then he rejects it entirely. And that's just not a particularly logical or reasonable reaction to theism. At least not to my way of thinking. But I welcome debate.
