-Two issues. Naturalism is not one thing. Science is based on Methodological Naturalism..not Philosophical Naturalism. — Nickolasgaspar

Perhaps. But, since this is a philosophical forum, I'm referring to the position defined in the quote below. So, there's not much distinction between them. :smile:

Philosophical Naturalism :
naturalism, in philosophy, a theory that relates scientific method to philosophy by affirming that all beings and events in the universe (whatever their inherent character may be) are natural. Consequently, all knowledge of the universe falls within the pale of scientific investigation.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/naturalism-philosophy

Now, In science the big bang event is not labeled as "creation"
(since it would imply extra agencies) but as "formation" so there was no real shock caused by that observation. — Nickolasgaspar

I have been surprised at how many prominent scientists have referred to the BB as a "creation event". You can Google some of their quotes. :smile:

"There is a strange ring of feeling and emotion in these reactions [of scientists to evidence that the universe had a sudden beginning]." ___ Robert Jastrow, astronomer, physicist

"An expanding universe does not preclude a creator, but it does place limits on when he might have carried out his job!" __ Stephen W. Hawking

- [1] Anthropic principles and [2] statistical probabilities are not even in the same ball park. The first is a conclusion based on available facts and the second presupposes teleology and purpose behind a creation.(fallacy). — Nickolasgaspar

I assume your comment got [1] & [2] backward. :wink:

ANTHROPIC ASSUMPTIONS
A. We can identify which natural properties are necessary or compatible for life
B. Evolution follows natural laws and inherent limitations set by initial conditions & constants
C. The element Carbon, only produced in certain stars, is essential to life, but is rare (.025%) on Earth
D. The initial conditions of our universe were selected from all possible logical (mental) or actual (multiverse) combinations
E. The complex pathway to Life has a low statistical probability
F. An unlikely occurrence is not necessarily a miracle, but must have some ultimate Cause
Book Review of The Anthropic Cosmological Principle

:mask:

"christian atheism" versus "new atheism" :eyes: :pray:

Perhaps. But, since this is a philosophical forum, I'm referring to the position defined in the quote below. So, there's not much distinction between them. :smile: — Gnomon

-Well the definition is wrong or vague at best. First of all there isn't such a thing as A scientific method. There are many methodologies in science and the limits and standards are defined by Methodological Naturalism. Secondly it doesn't distinguishes the two main types of Naturalism. (ontological as a worldview vs methodological as an acknowledgement of our epistemic limitations)
You should take an Academic Mooc on Philosophy of science if you want to learn about their differences. Copy pasting the first definition it pops up...especially when the term (Methodological) is NOT included in the result...is not the best way to gain information...

-"I have been surprised at how many prominent scientists have referred to the BB as a "creation event". You can Google some of their quotes."
-colloquial use of the term, maybe polluted by personal metaphysical beliefs. That is an argument from false authority. The fact is that the formation of the universe was not a creation act...at least we can not make that claim.

-""There is a strange ring of feeling and emotion in these reactions [of scientists to evidence that the universe had a sudden beginning]." ___ Robert Jastrow, astronomer, physicist"
- yes, learning new things can be emotional...what is your point and how can you connect that to a philosophical worldview????

"An expanding universe does not preclude a creator, but it does place limits on when he might have carried out his job!" __ Stephen W. Hawking"
-Cherry picking on Stephen's poetic irony? You do see the irony in his words.....don't you???


-" - [1] Anthropic principles and [2] statistical probabilities are not even in the same ball park. The first is a conclusion based on available facts and the second presupposes teleology and purpose behind a creation.(fallacy). — Nickolasgaspar

I assume your comment got [1] & [2] backward. :wink:

ANTHROPIC ASSUMPTIONS
A. We can identify which natural properties are necessary or compatible for life
B. Evolution follows natural laws and inherent limitations set by initial conditions & constants
C. The element Carbon, only produced in certain stars, is essential to life, but is rare (.025%) on Earth
D. The initial conditions of our universe were selected from all possible logical (mental) or actual (multiverse) combinations
E. The complex pathway to Life has a low statistical probability
F. An unlikely occurrence is not necessarily a miracle, but must have some ultimate Cause
Book Review of The Anthropic Cosmological Principle".

indeed, I placed them backwards.

The don't agree with the second premise. Evolution is the product of natural processes(law?), The limitations are set by random events (non deleterious mutations that allow an organism to survive)and ever changing conditions of the environment!!!

The C point is also irrelevant. The rarity of an element say nothing about its ability to form more compounds than all the other elements combined. Its rare only relative to the size of the earth's crust. Obviously its more than enough to act as a catalyst for lifeforms on the planet.
A surprising thing would be if there were carbon based lifeforms without any carbon on the planet....

D is also a massive failure. Claiming what one needs to prove is a red flag. -"The initial conditions of our universe were selected....". first of all you will need to prove that a selection among many choices was available and it actually took place. The truth is that we just DON'T KNOW whether the characteristics of the universe were inevitable...and of course it is the fallacious thinking of the puddle by Douglas Adams all over again. I hope you have heard about it and understand that it is more likely for water or a "flexible" biology to fit exactly in a pot hole or an environment that sustains pockets of life....than to find life evolving in an environment that doesn't sustain life.

E. an other huge failure "The complex pathway to Life has a low statistical probability". And how one can calculate the probabilities exactly? Since we have ended up with a huge diversity of life forms, its not only probable......but its also POSSIBLE.
Complexity doesn't imply low statistical probability. The immense number of galaxies, solar systems, moons and planets do not favor this unfounded claim. Probabilities are Mathematical calculations. I would like to learn what variables are used to reach that conclusion.

F. "An unlikely occurrence is not necessarily a miracle". The problem is that unlikely occurrences happen and they are verified all the time ( read Ricard Feynman take on that). We can not say the same thing about miracles though......
'' but must have some ultimate Cause"
-Sure....and we can drop the "ultimate" since it only introduces woo and zero information plus it poisons the well. So now we need to identify and verify that cause. Until then we should stick with what we know and what we can verify to be in agreement with current facts. Anything beyond our current epistemology is irrational and "not even wrong".

Nice work.

you too! Good luck fighting the "beast of irrationality"( which isn't necessarily wrong, but this is the whole point! Its not EVEN wrong). Cheers!

-Well the definition is wrong or vague at best. First of all there isn't such a thing as A scientific method. — Nickolasgaspar

The quote referred to "scientific method[s}" to contrast with "philosophical methods". Note, I added the "s" to improve the parallel, and to make you feel better. :joke:

The fact is that the formation of the universe was not a creation act...at least we can not make that claim. — Nickolasgaspar

On what basis do you make that factual claim?

-Cherry picking on Stephen's poetic irony? You do see the irony in his words.....don't you??? — Nickolasgaspar

Yes, But I also see the acknowledgement that the BB could be construed as a creation event. Which is why Einstein, among others, resisted the idea. He had assumed that the universe was self-existent. But was forced to change his mind. Some scientists quibbled that the BB was not an "explosion in space" but an "expansion of space'. But even that clarification avoided the issue of how space came to be. Had it always existed somewhere in the Great Beyond, or was it "created" from nothing? Since I know nothing about the Great Before, like most non-specialists, I accept the BB philosophically & metaphorically as a "creation event". Besides, all other pre-BB explanations, such as Multiverses, are also Creation Myths. :smile:

“The basic laws of the universe are simple, but because our senses are limited, we can't grasp them. There is a pattern in creation.”
___A. Einstein
https://www.azquotes.com/author/4399-Albert_Einstein/tag/creation

"The Big Bang Is Hard Science. It Is Also a Creation Story."
___Barry Powell

indeed, I placed them backwards. — Nickolasgaspar

Apparently, you are going to place everything in this topic backwards. Are you just being contrarian? :cool:

The quote referred to "scientific method[s}" to contrast with "philosophical methods". Note, I added the "s" to improve the parallel, and to make you feel better. — Gnomon

-again, its irrelevant to the fact that Methodological Naturalism is not a metaphysical view but an acknowledgment of our limits of our methods.

-"On what basis do you make that factual claim?"
-Null Hypothesis. Any existential claim need to be rejected until objective facts can falsify our initial rejection. So its not a factual claim, its the default position one should hold on unfalsifiable existential claims. The existence of a creator needs to be demonstrated...not assumed.

-"Yes, But I also see the acknowledgement that the BB could be construed as a creation event. "
-Fallacy of Ambiguity. Using the term poetically doesn't imply what you need to prove....

-"Which is why Einstein, among others, resisted the idea."
-He questioned the observations...this is what any scientists should do and demand independent verification. Why are you using celebrity scientists to support your metaphysical arguments? You do know what a fallacy from false authority is...right? Einstein was expert in physics..not on metaphysics.

-" He had assumed that the universe was self-existent. But was forced to change his mind. "
-He "install" a made up constant...remember? He was forced out of his belief through objective facts.

-" Some scientists quibbled that the BB was not an "explosion in space" but an "expansion of space'. But even that clarification avoided the issue of how space came to be."
-the BB was NOT an explosion...nothing banged. IT was an expansion of a change in state of energy.
The space is "created" by the distance between structures of the universe. The cosmic(previous state) just exists.

-"Had it always existed somewhere in the Great Beyond, or was it "created" from nothing? "
-Again Nothing can not be a state of being...since nothing is not being. How can nothing "exist" when it is NOTHING?

-" Since I know nothing about the Great Before, like most non-specialists, I accept the BB philosophically & metaphorically as a "creation event". "
-Not a creation and no creator in our scientific framework. It was a cataclysmic event for cosmos that allowed the existing quantum brewing substrate to enable the formation of the universe.

-"Besides, all other pre-BB explanations, such as Multiverses, are also Creation Myths. "
-Not really, but if you like the word, be my guest. As long as you don't bootstrap magical tool-men, we are ok.

“The basic laws of the universe are simple, but because our senses are limited, we can't grasp them. There is a pattern in creation.”
___A. Einstein
https://www.azquotes.com/author/4399-Albert_Einstein/tag/creation

"The Big Bang Is Hard Science. It Is Also a Creation Story."
___Barry Powell

indeed, I placed them backwards. — Nickolasgaspar — Gnomon

-Again posting poetic takes on metaphysics by scientists doesn't help your case.
ITs the same fallacy of ambiguity all over again. "dna is a language, or a code", "information is an intrinsic feature of nature" etc etc. Our language implies agency because it was evolved by mind of thinking agents.
That doesn't mean that this ambiguity supports your metaphysical beliefs.
I think its a waste of time to point out the obvious....

even if Einstein or others did assume creation or a creator, that would only be product of their metaphysical beliefs ...not a product of their Science.

:up:

Sam Harris: Mostly focuses on the ills of religion (terrorism, oppression of women, and so on)

Christopher Hitchens: Ditto

Daniel Dennett: Haven't seen a video where he presents his position in re God, but it's widely believed that he's an athesit.

Richard Dawkins: Science and religion are incompatible. That's his mantra. Emphasizes Darwin's theory of evolution, and pits it against religious creationism.

concept of God — Jack Cummins

Immanuel Kant, if accounts of him are accurate, was averse to God as traditionally understood, an idea we could mentally manipulate with the aid of logic in order to prove/disprove. That, he claimed, is NOT God. He offers an alternative which, for the life of me, I can't recall.

Daniel Dennett makes a similar point. Once you accept that God is a concept, you're an atheist, you just don't know that you're one.

God isn't a concept. Am I concept? Are you? :grin:

New atheism : evangelical :: old atheism : philosophical.

-"Sam Harris: Mostly focuses on the ills of religion (terrorism, oppression of women, and so oon)"
-yes , philosophy is the study of facts in an attempt to produce wise claims. Identifying the issues religions cause is a philosophical endeavor!

Richard Dawkins: Science and religion are incompatible. That's his mantra. Emphasizes Darwin's theory of evolution, and pits it against religious creationism — Agent Smith

-Again he is making acknowledgment on facts and issues created by religion. Religions compete with science in cosmological and biological claims. They try to pollute our epistemology by attempting to introduce their myths in the classes.
Again this is what we expect form philosophy....to observe the facts and highly the implications wisely.

So "new atheism" is nothing more than exposing religious wrong doings that have crippled societies and epistemology for ages.
Religious people and magical thinkers don't like it so they accuse the messenger for exposing their bad practices.
Now I am not sure that you understand what "evangelical"means. Atheists bring the BAD news about religious practices...how that qualities as "ευ αγγελικον" (a good/great announcement)???

New atheism : evangelical :: old atheism : philosophical. — 180 Proof

:fire:

Identifying the issues religions cause is a philosophical endeavor! — Nickolasgaspar

Why are you listening to other people's metaphysical beliefs???
Being an atheist (the minimum position) means to not be convinced of claims about god's existence.
Now of course God is primarily a concept. Its a concept that includes multiple qualities and ontological claims.
If one is convinced that god is only a made up concept that isn't tied to an actual agent then he is an Antitheist.
The burden of a Theist is to provide objective evidence for the ontological reality of that concept.

Originality is not something I'm known for. Plus, why reinvent the wheel. Tried and tested theories are preferrable to novel ideas that haven't been vetted by experts/veterans, oui?

As for atheism, the certainty of the claim makes me cringe, it doesn't sit well with the skeptic in me. Why can't we do what we should be doing, suspend judgement (I don't know), and acknowledge the truth viz. we don't know whether god exists or not, ja? Agnosticism is the most rational position to adopt. Atheism vs. theism is like two people fighting over the color of ball before they've even seen the ball. Agnostics would like to see the ball first and only then enter into a discussion as to the ball's hue. It's just common sense.

Originality is not something I'm known for. Plus, why reinvent the wheel. Tried and tested theories are preferrable to novel ideas that haven't been vetted by experts/veterans, oui? — Agent Smith

-because wheels don't work with staircases.....Our reasoning improves along with the available facts

As for atheism, the certainty of the claim makes me cringe, it doesn't sit well with the skeptic in me. — Agent Smith

-Atheism and certainty of claim...is like like saying the best way to cook burgers is with your freezer.
Maybe you are referring to Strong Atheism or Antitheism because the minimum position of Atheism is to "Not be convinced of the concept".
On the other hand the antheistic position in relation to specific version of the concept qualifies as a certain claim! i.e. Christian cosmology, morality, social injustice etc.

-"Why can't we do what we should be doing, suspend judgement (I don't know), and acknowledge the truth viz. we don't know whether god exists or not, ja? "
-This is exactly what it means to be an atheist...suspend belief until objective facts justify it.
Its the Null Hypothesis that demands the rejection of all existential claims until objective facts can falsify that initial rejection.
If you suspend your belief in the existence or non existence of god, then you are not a Theist or an Antitheist. You are an Atheist (A=without a theistic belief against or in favor).

-"Agnosticism is the most rational position to adopt."
-ONCE again. Agnosticism addresses knowledge, Atheism addresses belief. Knowledge is a subset of belief.(we are justified in believing things that are based on knowledge claims).
Those two terms are NOT mutually exclusive. for example I am an agnostic atheist...this means that I am not convinced of the claim since I don't have knowledge to justify my belief in favor or against this concept.
This means that I need to reject it (not believe in it) until objective facts can justify a different belief.

-"Atheism vs. theism is like two people fighting over the color of ball before they've even seen the ball."
-Your example is not good. A Ballist and an A-ballist fight about whether it is reasonable to believe that a magical ball exists....we are not even close to talk about its color! Theist talk about the properties of the "ball" (all powerful divine, merciful good etc etc). So the color talk originates from one side only.
An atheist rejects the existence of the god (ball) because there aren't sufficient evidence to warrant belief in it. He doesn't necessary needs to adopt the Antitheistic burden.!
In the case of the christian god I would happily accept the antitheistic position due to the ridiculous claims made by the dogma of christianity.


-"Atheism vs. theism is like two people fighting over the color of ball before they've even seen the ball."
- I am not sure that atheists give any weight to the claimed properties of the "ball". As far as I can tell they demand theists to point out the ball and they will go from there.

In general:
Atheism addresses the belief claim of God's existence. It doesn't addresses its non existence...like in the court we address guilty- not guilty, we don't address innocence.
This is because the burden is on the side making the claim (theists for god existence and prosecutor for guilt).
Its more than inevitable to make logical errors (i.e. false dichotomy, shifting of the burden) when you try to address one then one statement (god exists, god doesn't exist).

I never could wrap my head around the claim that atheism is a lack of belief and therefore, these very same atheists go on to say, the onus probandi falls not on 'em.

What is atheism, how shall we, in one statement, condense their viewpoint? It can't be "God doesn't exist". for the simple reason that that's a knowledge claim and ergo, needs to be proved.

If, as you aver, atheism is about belief, do you mean that atheists opt not to believe for no rhyme or reason? This doesn't add up now does it? An atheist has to justify why s/he refuses to believe in God unless s/he wants to admit that their stance on the god issue is utterly baseless.

I never could wrap my head around the claim that atheism is a lack of belief and therefore, these very same atheists go on to say, the onus probandi falls not on 'em. — Agent Smith

-Those are two different logical criteria.
The first (lack of belief due to the absence of evidence)is defined as the Default Position by the Null Hypotheses.
Demanding evidence for those who warrant belief to that claim is defined by the Burden of Proof.
Those who accept a claim as true need to provide justification for it.

What is atheism, how shall we, in one statement, condense their viewpoint? It can't be "God doesn't exist. for the simple reason that that's a knowledge claim and ergo, needs to be proved. — Agent Smith

-"If, as you aver, atheism is about belief, do you mean that atheists opt not to believe for no rhyme or reason? "
-Atheism addresses belief. Atheism not on its own a belief. Its the rejection of a belief claim. Atheist can and do hold other beliefs . There are raeliens, buddhists, antitheists, supernaturalists etc They all hold the minimum position (rejecting all known god claims) and they go a step further, but not all of us do! I don't.

-"This doesn't add up now does it?''
-I don't know what it doesn't add up. I dont believe in the big foot or fairies or Nessy, does that means that I need to replace my disbelief in those claims with an additional belief? why?

-"An atheist has to justify why s/he refuses to believe in God unless s/he wants to admit that their stance on the god issue is utterly baseless."
-First of all its not a matter of refusal when we deal with belief. A claim either meets our standards of acceptance or it doesn't.
In order for the god claim to be accepted it will need to be supported by objective evidence. My rejection of the god concept is based on the fact that theists are unable to offer objective evidence.
4.300 religions with more than 10.000 gods prove the subjective nature of this belief.
SO if you are able to provide objective evidence product of accessible to everyone facts then I will accept the concept of god as a reasonable belief.

Null Hypotheses — Nickolasgaspar

Can you please expand and elaborate on the Null Hypothesis.

Is it like assuming there's no God and then making an attempt to prove God's existence, failing which the Null Hypothesis (there is no God) holds?

I've heard of the Null Hypothesis in community medicine where a correlation is assumed not to exist or deemed as only coincidental, a study is then conducted, the data analyzed, and assessed for statistical significance which is just another way of saying the correlation can't be coincidental. The rest of the method I no longer recall.

As for atheism, the certainty of the claim makes me cringe ... — Agent Smith

What "certainty"? For most atheists, at minimum, it's a probabilistic (i.e. falliblistic) belief warranted by (some or all versions of) theism's lack of corroborating evidence, or sound arguments, in contrast to ubiquitous counter-evidences from comparative philosophies, comparative histories, as well as natural and social sciences. At minimum, theism is a belief consisting of claims about "God", etc the truths of which are highly improbable in the context of all we know (so far) about nature and human existence. "Certainty" is a canard, Smith. One simply says to a theist, in effect, "How do you know there is a God?", which is quintessentially a skeptical question, and the rest follows from her non/answer.

-"Can you please expand and elaborate on the Null Hypothesis."
-Sure.
The Null hypothesis is a logical principle that mainly informs our statistics(no statistical significance exists in a set of given observation....and we go for there).
In the case of Existential claim the principle dictates that we shouldn't assume any connection between A(existence) and B(lets say god) until verified observations can falsify our initial "negative assumption".

-"Is it like assuming there's no God and then making an attempt to prove God's existence, failing which the Null Hypothesis (there is no God) holds?"
Now the problem with your example is that you addressing two different statements (no god exist and god does exists).
The Null Hypotheses assumes that there is no connection between existence and god until our negation is falsified by objective facts.(data)
Not accepting A (god exists) ≠A is wrong(No god exists).
The Null hypothesis guides our default position based on the claim found in first part of the equation (god exist), not the second part.

-"I've heard of the Null Hypothesis in community medicine where a correlation is assumed not to exist or deemed as only coincidental, a study is then conducted, the data analyzed, and assessed for statistical significance which is just another way of saying the correlation can't be coincidental. The rest of the method I no longer recall. "
-Correct. correlation need to be demonstrated if possible beyond sufficiency and necessity.

Either materialism or idealism is the reality of things.
If idealism is how it is, then God, in the Brahman sense rather than in the pantheon sense, is self evident and the existence of an objective material universe is what has a burden of proof.

If materialism is the case, then the objective material universe is self evident, and the existence of God holds the burden of proof.

What I'm saying is that one's paradigm determines if God or the universe seem self evident or not to you. It goes deeper than belief or unbelief. Than proof or lack of proof.

The God question has to do with Ultimate Reality itself, rather than this or that thing in reality.
Maybe there is no pantheons in reality. That has nothing to do with whether Ultimate Reality is Brahman or matter.

The ball in Smith's analogy is Reality, as I see it. Neither theists nor atheists can simply point to reality. It can only indirectly be referenced.

-"Either materialism or idealism is the reality of things.'
-or occastionalism or solipsism or pantheism or theism....

-"If idealism is how it is,"....nothing changes all worldviews fell beyond a point that makes any difference to our realm. The burden is set based on your current worldview...not based on a hypothetical "if".

none of those two ideologies affect the concept of god. Being a magical being it can exist in an idealistic or materialistic world...after all he is the supposed creator, I guess he can be good with mud or other materials.

What I'm saying is that one's paradigm determines if God or the universe seem self evident or not to you. It goes deeper than belief or unbelief. Than proof or lack of proof. — Yohan

-And my position is that both paradigm are pseudo philosophical since none of them can produce wise claims(philosophical) that can bring change in our life and expand our understanding.
It goes further away from being rational.... occupying our thoughts with things that can not improve our wisdom or understanding of the world around us.
These ideas are fine if this forum was on theology but they are out of topic in a philosophical discussion.
Again and I can not stress it enough.
"The Philosophical Method is an exercise in frustration, not the pursuit of happiness".
In order to be a good philosopher you need to accept your epistemic and existential anxieties and keep them separate from your syllogisms.

Oh!

So, we assume no connection between God and existence (H₀) and then try to disprove that assumption i.e. prove that there's a connection between God and existence.

What does "connection between existence and God" mean? It seems like you're saying it isn't the claim "God exists". If so, the Null Hypothesis method is pointless, oui?

Since the Null Hypothesis seems to be about correlations, it's mostly got to do with causal hypotheses and isn't suitable for proving/disproving existence. Existence, causation, two different things!

As for atheism, the certainty of the claim makes me cringe ...
— Agent Smith
What "certainty"? For most atheists, at minimum, it's a probabilistic (i.e. falliblistic) belief warranted by (some or all versions of) theism's lack of corroborating evidence, or sound arguments in contrast to ubiquitous counter-evidences from comparative philosophies, comparative histories, as well as natural and social sciences. At minimum, theism is a belief consisting of claims about "God", etc the truths of which are highly improbable in the context of all we know (so far) about nature and human existence. "Certainty" is a canard, Smith. One simply says to a theist, in effect, "How do you know there is a God?", which is quintessentially a skeptical question, and thecrest follows from her non/answer. — 180 Proof

If atheism is fallibilistic + probabilistic, I have no issues. It's just that some/most atheists don't make that aspect of their position explicit. Hence my confusion. There's enough uncertainty in atheism in this form to allay my fears of unbridled dogmatism; as it is our hands are full dealing with this very same problem with theism.

-Again posting poetic takes on metaphysics by scientists doesn't help your case. — Nickolasgaspar

I'll just point-out that I'm not making a scientific case. Besides, Atheism is a belief in Absentia. It is not based on scientific facts, but on the absence of physical evidence, which is literally & figuratively immaterial to a metaphysical concept. By "meta-physical" I refer to that which is non-physical (e.g. mental ; cultural), hence immaterial to scientific methods, which specifically eschews subjective phenomenology (personal experience).

BTW, my position is not anti-science, but pro-philosophy. I'm also not a Theist, so the typical anti-theism arguments miss their imaginary target. IMHO, Philosophy is more of an art than a science. So demanding reductive scientific evidence for a holistic concept is like, requiring Picasso to justify his odd imagery with empirical facts. Did he really see the world that way? It doesn't matter. :smile:

Legitimate Metaphysics :
Naturalized metaphysicians defend the thesis that science licenses meta-
physics, such that only metaphysical results that are based on the best science
are to be considered legitimate.
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/11149/1/OMR_Does_Science_License_Metaphysics.pdf

Metaphysics as the Science of Essence :
the central task of metaphysics is to chart the possibilities of being, with a view to
articulating the structure of reality as a whole, at its most fundamental level.
http://ontology.buffalo.edu/06/Lowe/Lowe.pdf

Once again you seem to be shadowboxing with a strawman, Gnomon. :roll:

To the degree that theism consists in factual truth-claims, atheism is the second-order objection that 'theism is not corroborated either by direct evidence or with sound arguments'. However, if your position, Gnomon, is that 'theism does not consist in factual truth-claims' (i.e. is only a purely speculative concept ~ non-propositional à la poetry, myth, supposition), then your position happens to be substantively consistent with (weak) atheism while also contrary to what most avowed theists actually profess to "believe in" (& often savagely martyr one other to defend): that "God" is an entity ("person") which is more concrete than a mere "meta-physical" idea. :sparkle:

I am not sure whether God would have to be a person as such, because that is more the anthropological picture of what the concept means. In this sense, the human being imagines God as being a person. The idea that God is a person, apart from in the form of Jesus Christ, may lead to the conclusion that there is no God at all. On the other hand, it could be that the idea of God would make more sense of it were seen as the inner, or personal connection with the source of everything, including nature.