InformedIgnorance
Do you 'know' or believe?
I do not believe it obtains the responsibility to demonstrate it's existence, simply because it exists (if it does).
On the other hand, if it demonstrates or does not demonstrate its existence that might tell us something of its nature. Particularly if our comprehension of its existence and/or our awareness of some aspect such as it's intentions towards us, were of relevance to us either inherently (such as being responsible for the rules that govern our existence) or consequently (such as because of such action of god - such as imposing punishment). This would likely give us the possibility of informing ourselves about some of the attributes of a god concept in a contingent fashion (enabling us to pose hypotheticals), such as:
IF: 'god' intends to reward people who wear sandals and we do not have clear indication that god exists or that god wants us to wear sandals or that this would be rewarded
THEN: if god exists god is unconcerned with increasing the likelihood of people wearing sandals
By not demonstrating it's existence such a god would facilitate our ability to do the above for any action or inaction and thus it would indicate that god is unconcerned with everything and the line of inquiry is rendered mute. 'god', by choosing not to reveal its existence does not care to increase our understanding of what it wants or to influence our actions. This means that we would have no means by which to further our knowledge of god and therefore that attempting to pursue this field of understanding is a waste of time, thus it would suggest that apatheism is the most logically sound position to take.
That would STILL not make it god's responsibility to demonstrate it's existence.
edit: actually I overstepped that point, an alternative to being unwilling to demonstrate its existence and thus unconcerned, is that it could be incapable of demonstrating it's existence and thus impotent. An oversight.
On the other hand, if it demonstrates or does not demonstrate its existence that might tell us something of its nature. Particularly if our comprehension of its existence and/or our awareness of some aspect such as it's intentions towards us, were of relevance to us either inherently (such as being responsible for the rules that govern our existence) or consequently (such as because of such action of god - such as imposing punishment). This would likely give us the possibility of informing ourselves about some of the attributes of a god concept in a contingent fashion (enabling us to pose hypotheticals), such as:
IF: 'god' intends to reward people who wear sandals and we do not have clear indication that god exists or that god wants us to wear sandals or that this would be rewarded
THEN: if god exists god is unconcerned with increasing the likelihood of people wearing sandals
By not demonstrating it's existence such a god would facilitate our ability to do the above for any action or inaction and thus it would indicate that god is unconcerned with everything and the line of inquiry is rendered mute. 'god', by choosing not to reveal its existence does not care to increase our understanding of what it wants or to influence our actions. This means that we would have no means by which to further our knowledge of god and therefore that attempting to pursue this field of understanding is a waste of time, thus it would suggest that apatheism is the most logically sound position to take.
That would STILL not make it god's responsibility to demonstrate it's existence.
edit: actually I overstepped that point, an alternative to being unwilling to demonstrate its existence and thus unconcerned, is that it could be incapable of demonstrating it's existence and thus impotent. An oversight.
Last edited:
