Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Not quite. I think a god is a spiritual being, one without a material body--a being who cannot be perceived with our senses. And what I'm saying is that for me, I think "being subject to being perceived" and "existing" are functionally equivalent. If something "exists" in some sense, but has no measurable effect, cannot be perceived with any sense, and has no measurable effect that can be perceived with any sense, then regardless of whether it may "exist" in some sense, it can be treated as non-existent for all intents and purposes.You said "I define God as a being who does not exist." (That's from memory, so forgive me if I didn't get the phrasing precisely right.) By that definition, everyone is atheist.
It seemed to me that the very definition of a god is a being that cannot be perceived with any sense. So we need to look for some measurable effect. And there aren't any. So that's why I'm a strong atheist, and why I don't consider that a faith position.
How would you define the word "god?" Not, who or what do you think God is, but how do you define that word to include all known gods, Krishna, Zeus, Changing Woman, etc?
I'm trying to address the god-concept by definition. People have a tendency to be a bit vague on that definition.Point of clarification: is your strong atheism limited to the Abrahamic God? Because none of this addresses alternative theologies.
It doesn't address pantheism, or really is almost equivalent to it. I haven't thought about Panentheism.
I agree with Victor Stenger and Richard Dawkins that YWHW/Allah is subject to scientific investigation, (depending on what people even mean by that, but the traditional version), and can be eliminated based on empirical evidence. So I guess that's strong atheism as well, since it's an affirmative statement that God does not exist.
And may you be preserved from it; it's the apologetics of annoyance.Doesn't ring a bell.