Why it makes no sense to ask for evidence that God doesn't exist

Over the years I've written numerous blog posts about the near-impossibility of proving a negative such as God doesn't exist. 

This isn't the way both science and common sense work.

We don't ask for evidence that invisible fairies aren't making our cars move. Since cars have engines, or motors if they're electric, there's lots of evidence in favor of engines/motors, so no need to deal with the invisible fairy hypothesis.

Same is the case with God. Or at least how atheists look upon God. 

Below is how Armin Navabi addresses this issue in his book, "Why There Is No God: Simple Responses to 20 Common Arguments for the Existence of God."

"There's no evidence that God doesn't exist."

When confronted with criticism, some theists will pull out this argument in an attempt to shift the burden of proof toward the critic. Although this tactic can feel very clever, it opens a door to absurdity.

This argument seems to suggest that we believe in everything, even things we have yet to think about, until that belief is proven false. That's simply not a logical way to perceive reality.

If the criteria for something being accepted as true was based purely on there being no evidence against it, an endless number of hypothetical objects could suddenly become "real." This has been the source of numerous playful thought experiments by skeptics around the world.

-- The flying spaghetti monster, who created the earth with his noodly appendage.

-- The invisible pink unicorn, whose "believers" logically know that she must be invisible because she has not been seen, yet have faith that she's pink.

-- The dragon in Carl Sagan's garage, a thought experiment he describes in The Demon-Haunted World. The dragon is invisible, floats in the air, generates no heat and is incorporeal, thus evading all forms of sensory detection.

-- Russell's Teapot, a hypothetical teapot that you cannot prove isn't orbiting the sun.

Of course, all of these examples were designed in good fun. Bertrand Russell does not actually believe that there is a teapot orbiting the sun. However, there is no way to definitively prove that these fanciful claims aren't true, which demonstrates the total absurdity of this line of thinking.

Ad hoc arguments

Carl Sagan's invisible dragon argument shows the futility of ad hoc arguments in explaining reality.

An ad hoc argument is one that makes excuses to rationalize away the valid criticisms of an argument without any evidence to support it. When the claimant desperately wants something to be true, she'll often employ an ad hoc argument to counter any arguments to her claim.

The dragon in Carl Sagan's hypothetical garage cannot be seen because it's invisible. A skeptic might press for evidence. But its footprints cannot be observed because it hovers in the air, and the dragon's invisible fire is heatless.

A rationalization can be formed to explain the absence of any form of evidence. These rationalizations don't make the original claim true. Indeed, it's easiest to make ad hoc arguments about things that don't really exist because that frees you up to create increasingly fanciful arguments.

When applied to theism, this ad hoc reasoning can be seen in the increasingly vague descriptions of God. The rationalizations discussed in the last chapter -- that God cannot be comprehended or described -- fall under the ad hoc fallacy.

Such rationalizations make God so vague that it becomes impossible to refute the idea, but they get the claimant nowhere closer to proving his claim. 

Disbelief is not the same as belief in something else

Telling an atheist to prove there is no God automatically assumes that this is what the atheist believes. While gnostic atheists confidently believe that there are no deities, many other atheists are agnostic atheists. 

In other words, these people do not believe in any gods, but they do not claim to be certain that gods do not exist. Gnostic atheists, meanwhile, do feel confident saying that no gods exist. Both are valid types of atheism.

It is important to note that atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. To understand the difference between atheist and agnosticism, visit AtheismVsAgnosticism.com

Lack of belief in deities is enough to classify someone as an atheist. Lacking belief in something does not mean that you believe it to be false; it just means that you have no conviction that it's true. 

For example, a friend of yours may believe that Ford is the best car company in the world. You have no particular opinion one way of the other. You don't believe that Ford is better than any other car brand, but you also don't know that it's not the best car brand. In this situation, you would be agnostic about your friend's claim.

In actuality, most people are atheist about at least some gods.

After all, there are thousands of gods throughout the history of world theology, but the majority of religious people have no problem in disbelieving Zeus, Thor, or Anubis. Jews and Muslims have no problem denying the divinity of Christ. Monotheists are well practiced in disbelieving other gods.

As Richard Dawkins put it, atheists simply take this one god further.

Religions demand perfect evidence from anyone rebutting their claims but offer none for their own claims. If faced with convincing evidence in favor of any deity, we should reconsider our position. 

But we need to ask questions and go where the evidence leads us, rather than try to lead the evidence where we like. By questioning everything, we follow the evidence, rather than trying to force the evidence to fit our presupposed conclusions.

Comments

[Vinny]

It makes no sense to see Christian thieves perishing in unconscious mind. That is their fate for thievery.

[Vinny]

Many Christian thieves were hanged in Roman Empire , so the fact of Christian thievery is established in history.

[Appreciative Reader]

Critical thinking is unfortunately something of a rare commodity. It shouldn't be, not in this day and age, but somehow it is. It never fails to surprise me when I come across, as unfortunately one often does, people who are otherwise well educated, but who have nevertheless managed, somehow, to remain clueless about such basics of critical thinking as the burden of proof.

[Manoj]

There's no evidence that God doesn't exist."

Well where he definitely doesn't exist is in man made religion like Radha Soami and the Lying Living Legend, Gurinder Singh Dhillion.

Confined behind the walls of that small gangsters paradise (Dera) where it all, so goes on

A quick Google search can enlighten all

He so wants to be a God and has alot of people even fooled as to believe he may have some attributes of a God, but if we dissect a little further we can all see the reality of, the masked fool in hiding.

Dont be fooled, by the fool (GSD)

And give God a chance to prove his very existence, in our lives

[albert]

Thanks Brian!

What preceded the material universe and all manifestation? Nothing comes from nothing.

Blessings!

[Brian Hines]

Albert, absolutely nothing comes from absolutely nothing. So it's much more likely that the cosmos is eternal. It has always existed. So the big bang came from an already existing something, such as the laws of nature that permit a big bang to happen.

This is a simpler and more reasonable view than assuming God has always existed, and God brought the cosmos into being. If something always has existed, it makes sense to assume that it is what obviously exists now, the cosmos -- not an invisible God.

Otherwise we have to ask, "What made God exist?" If the answer is nothing, God has always existed. why not say the same thing about the cosmos: it has always existed.

[Sonia]

Well, first of all the word God has taken on the same negative connotations as the word religion.

But the word God is even worse because, quite honestly I have no idea what one is talking about when they say God. It means wildly different things to different people. It can mean anything from the universe to love to some funny old guy with a white beard and robes that supposedly created Adam and Eve.

God is not a useful term in this context IMO.

[What if???]

Brian says
"This is a simpler and more reasonable view than assuming God has always existed, and God brought the cosmos into being. If something always has existed, it makes sense to assume that it is what obviously exists now, the cosmos -- not an invisible God."

Heres a thought what is this eternal cosmos IS itself GOD. Whoa!!! What a concept.

[Sonia]

@What if???

I think that’s a good definition for “god”. I would include benevolence with that.

The Benevolent Eternal Cosmos.

To infinity and beyond!

[Sonia]

@ Solomon

This song is special to me. I think it was playing in the background. https://youtu.be/aJxrX42WcjQ

[Solomon]

@ Sonia
Yes it is ....

The monologue is beautifully written - have watched it a couple of times...

Netflix's Midnight Mass
https://youtu.be/qmCoYMc1ESQ

[🌺🌺 that YOU don't exist. 🌺🌺]

There's no evidence that YOU don't exist.

777

[GSD_Rules]

There's no evidence that God doesn't exist."

Well where he definitely doesn't exist is in man made religion like Radha Soami and the Lying Living Legend, Gurinder Singh Dhillion.

Confined behind the walls of that small gangsters paradise (Dera) where it all, so goes on

A quick Google search can enlighten all

He so wants to be a God and has alot of people even fooled as to believe he may have some attributes of a God, but if we dissect a little further we can all see the reality of, the masked fool in hiding.

Dont be fooled, by the fool (GSD)

And give God a chance to prove his very existence, in our lives

Posted by: Manoj | October 04, 2021 at 11:33 AM

Even obsessive lovers are more balanced than you.

Get a life beyond GSD.

LoL

[The Insignificant Mortal Cosmos]

The Benevolent Eternal Cosmos.

To infinity and beyond!

Posted by: Sonia | October 04, 2021 at 07:17 PM

The scientific community is all so very excited about this notion and is keen to review the detailed paper supporting this notion.

[Do you actually exist]

There's no evidence that YOU don't exist.

777

Posted by: 🌺🌺 that YOU don't exist. 🌺🌺 | October 05, 2021 at 06:18 AM

But where exactly is the 'YOU' located?

Is “you” located in your brain or other bodily matter? if you exist at all...

[-- 7 --]

Here is anIsraeli Doctor risking his life to prove evil
https://rumble.com/vmt0en-dr.-vladimir-zelenko-takes-a-big-risk-by-telling-all.html
Do yo believe?
He defends Professor Luc Montagnier, Nobel Price Winner s standpoint
https://rumble.com/vmt0en-dr.-vladimir-zelenko-takes-a-big-risk-by-telling-all.html

If someone will tell me that Gurinder opposes this
Prove it
Anyway, . . I m still anti trump

77

[🌺🌺 YOU don't exist. 🌺🌺]

But where exactly is the 'YOU' located? It s an enigma
today:
In Salem, OR

77

[Uchit]

So many blind followers fall for looney circus shows like RSSB gurinder Singh Dhillon. Step back, look at the internet and you'll see that this man is the "biggest crook on the planet "

- these are words from GSD himself in a private satsang.

Wake up and live your own life , not a life the wizard of oz, actor on stage wants you to have.

[Spence Tepper]

It is unscientific and irrational to claim something doesn't exist simply because it hasnt been tested for experimentally.

All the things science has discovered were invisible before being tested. They still existed.

And science hasn't tested all that is.

There is so much that remains unknown.

The argument that nothing exists if you can't see it is the source if human misery.

[Sonia]

The scientific community is all so very excited about this notion and is keen to review the detailed paper supporting this notion.

Posted by: The Insignificant Mortal Cosmos | October 05, 2021 at 11:30 AM

The Butterfly Effect

We live in a cruel world. The belief that life is fair is The Big Lie. There’s nothing fair in this world. Every mistake you make sets off a chain reaction of events that will crucify you a thousand times over for that one mistake. There is no equilibrium in karma. You have paid dearly for every mistake you have ever made—far more than you can imagine. Life is not fair. That is the Truth.

The only antidote to this cruelty is Grace. Mercy and forgiveness are the trademarks of The Benevolent Eternal Cosmos bring light into this world and carrying you beyond to The World of Light.

Make no mistake, this is a very cruel system of things. Again, the notion that life is fair is a deluded one. Every soul has paid for every error thousands of times over and it will continue that way until you understand the true meaning of Love and Grace.

[Sonia]

You can choose to perpetuate the belief system that shapes this cruel world or you can accept the only system of being that brings light into the world, transforming lives leading souls to their true home.

The belief that life is fair, that karma serves some sort of justice is terribly misguided. Karma perpetuates karma and it all starts with one single mistake.

It all ends with one simple realization—you cannot do anything to atone. However, you can learn the truth, know the truth, realize the truth and finally be free from returning to this madness—this self serving, twisted sense of justice which only serves the ego in believing it has the right to punish, the right to avenge—justifications for its cruelty.

You can sit for 2.5 hours per day and believe that will somehow free you from your sins. It’s not unlike going to church and praying for forgiveness while you believe that others deserve to be punished.

Sitting for 2.5 hours each day is not a get out of jail free card. What you practice 24 hours each day shows attests to how well you truly know yourself. You are Love but you don’t even know what Love is yet.

Meditation and prayer are wonderful is guided by Love. But they fail miserably if you believe in sin.

[-- 777 --]

@Sonia
You are so right and SO wrong in the same text
Amazing

Karma ( The Bad) exercises itself as a total minimum
that the subject needs to feel to change its habitude

Yes
Nothing than pure LOVE can burn bad results with the exception
of forgiveness of an eventual third/second party ( the one that suffered)
But if that individu isn t present here to forgive
it s only Love that melts the burden
Meditation is a way to generate Love, that is : it brings our consciousness
in the 6th , 7th chakra
where true existence exists, - true regrets also
THERE, . . there is no hypocrisy
Physically one can feel it that way : where the top_hair grows and higher

I m sure you agree

777

[Sonia]

“@Sonia
You are so right and SO wrong in the same text
Amazing”
-777

Funny, I say the same thing about satsangis all the time. 🤣🤣🤣

[Sonia]

Here’s what a real scientist with actual experience had to say about the infinite universe:

https://youtu.be/zmHrnKY6crE

[Appreciative Reader]

Very moving, Sonia.

I clicked the link, wanting to spend no more than a half minute maybe just to see what it is about, and before I knew it I'd watched through the whole of it. Very moving.

-------

Here's what occurred to me, though, at the end of it.

For one thing, it reminded me, somehow, of Paul Brunton's journal, that he maintained during his time spent in the mountains. And, more generally, it occurred to me:

That was a very special experience, a unique one in fact, that birthed those sentiments and those words. But already, some of us --- not me, nor I suppose you, but people numbering in maybe tens now, and hundreds soon, who have the necessary resources --- are able to avail of this experience, at will, at whim. Space tourism is here, already.

And in maybe a hundred years, going off to space for a few days may be no more an exotic experience than it is today to scoot of to some continent at the far end of the globe.

So that those experiences, and those ruminations, will soon not be such an exotic thing any more.

And, in any case, do you really need exotic experiences to trigger those thoughts? Sure, anything that triggers such depths is great, including a trip to space, but actually just sitting out on the beach looking out over the seas, or sitting out on a hill looking at the vastness beneath you, might give you that same sense of, of *being*. Indeed, as might simply sitting erect in a dark room all by yourself, or for that matter walking through the bustling streets.

All it needs, really, is the right frame of mind. How you might arrive at that is up to you. For some it comes as happenstance; but, while there is always an element here of something beyond you, but still, like most things, this something that can be cultivated, and made an everyday part of you; should, that is, you care to take the trouble.

[Manoj]

@GSD_Rules (are not worth the paper they're written on ) 🤣🤣🤣

Could you still be lost on over here after being on the true path to God? GSD & Radha Soami Cult

The Truth can be somewhat belitating but in the end it works wonders. Try it...

Try ingesting the truth, reality can be an real eye-opener sometimes

Living in denial can only take you so far, let alone to God enlightenment.

As for Gurinder Singh Dhillion, let's let living fools, live they're foolish lives, lost in denial within they're own lies.

[Tendzin]

I'm enjoying my discovery of the great series What We Do in the Shadows, which is about a household of vampires in Staten Island. One of the vampires is an Energy Vampire (get the joke?) who saps people's energy by various ways of boring them to tears. Sometimes he does it by obsessively clearing this throat, sometimes by long disquisitions on how to program a VCR or the pros and cons of various marijuana laws. I won't be surprised if in a coming episode he'll discover the energy-sucking wonders of atheist argumentation.

[271 Days]

Brian said, “why not say the same thing about the cosmos: it has always existed.”

We could say that but that would conflict with science which says the cosmos is around 14 billion years old: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe

So we are left with... since something cannot spring from nothing and the cosmos is only 14 billion years old whatever is eternal is not the cosmos.

[Brian Hines]

271 days, there's various things wrong with your perspective.

(1) I said "cosmos" because that is everything in existence. Our universe is the part of that something in which we exist.

(2) Science says there might be many universes in the cosmos. Perhaps countless universes. This notion is known as "eternal inflation," where bubble universes keep being formed from current universes.

(3) As I said in this post, likely laws of nature had to exist prior to the big bang. Those laws are something, not nothing. So it's wrong to say that the universe came from nothing. Almost certainly that didn't happen.

Thus you're wrong to claim that the cosmos isn't eternal. Again, you're mixing up our universe with everything that exists. The cosmos may well be eternal, while our universe is about 14 billion years old.

[271 Days]

Brian Hines:
I guess it comes down to definitions again. Did you happen to read the book

The Experience of God
Being, Consciousness, Bliss
By David Bentley Hart

A brilliant commentary on atheism and the new atheism and how a lot of this depends on defining words.

[Appreciative Reader]

"I guess it comes down to definitions again"

.......@271Days, what Brian's said in his response to you seems clear enough. It is a fact that the cosmos is the superset, and the universe is a subset within that superset. What lay beyond the Big Bang? No one knows, but among the many speculations (that is to say, informed speculations from physicists, not wild guesses) that have been put forward, a few that I recall are quantum fields; and, as Brian says, the laws of physics themselves (although, to be fair, some hold that that's not a given either, and that different universes may correspond to different laws of physics); as well as, and again as Brian's indicated, other universes from within which ours may have arisen. The totality of all that would answer, quite exactly and precisely, to the word "cosmos". That's what the word actually means.

On the contrary, it seems to me it is the theist that tries to shoehorn in some kind of God-idea through creative use of language, that is, and as you say, by playing with definitions. To begin with it is some tri-omni dude that micromanages people's lives. Or else it might be some "prime mover". Else it might simply be some principle that births the universe. Even, some hold it to be the totality of everything. That word, "God", is put to such wide use, that for all practical purposes it is a meaningless term (unless we take care to clearly work out the particular definition that is being used in some particular context).

As for what this Hart person has said, if you think the argument's a compelling one, then by all means make it. This is the right platform for it. But to simply say that "such and such person in some book has made some argument that's a great compelling argument, why don't you just read that book" doesn't sound very ...compelling, to use that word again.

Seriously, if you think Hart's said something that has impressed you, go ahead, reproduce his argument in your own words. We'll see if it makes sense. If it does, we'll be happy to acknowledge that. (By "we" I mean all reasonable folks. Certainly I'd acknowledge it unqualifiedly if an argument that goes against my current thinking seems sound, and I expect Brian would too.)

[Sonia]

@271 Days

Thanks for sharing that book. I guess I’ll spend my weekend reading it…

I started the book and quite honestly what hit me first was David Bentley Hart’s writing skills. It’s enough to read it for that alone.

But he raises so many points that I’ve never even considered before. It’s in line with what I believe but his view point is much broader.

Anyway… you still never answered my question. What is “271 Days”? Is that reference to a movie?

[Sonia]

“writing skills” (I write like a first grader lol). Hart’s writing ability is phenomenal.

[🔥 🔥 🔥]

There’s a reason they don’t use a lot of cinnamon in Indian cooking.

[Sonia]

OK, I’m on page 50 of Hart’s book (just 325 more pages to go if you’re reading it on Perlego) and it seems to me that “The God Problem” is real for unbelievers and believers alike.

We have this concept of God that defines it as something separate from ourselves and the world around us.

The concept is the problem.

Separation is a concept.

God is a concept.

You’ll have to read the book to find out more… it’s way too long to summarize in a way that would do justice.

It’s genius.

[271 Days]

@Sonia
Thanks for telling me you like the book so far. I am myself waiting for a sunny day to finish reading it on the balcony.
I don't know why I started using "271 days," I guess I was in a hurry and couldn't think of a name.

@ Appreciative
You said, "That word, "God", is put to such wide use, that for all practical purposes it is a meaningless term (unless we take care to clearly work out the particular definition that is being used in some particular context)."

That is kind of an important point, don't you think? If the word God is meaningless then the word atheist is also meaningless. One valuable distinction mentioned in the book is that "God," cannot be something among other things in creation. For example a divine being as described in most religious books is one being among other beings. That can be a god, but not God.

Forgetting about that book for a second my view is simple. No matter what you posit ie. cosmos, universe, laws, you have already posited awareness first. You can’t get behind awareness. Whatever you say requires awareness first. Awareness is the First Principle. So I think we can logically say Awareness/Being/Spirit/ is God. You don’t have to question if awareness exists. It exists before anything else possibly can.

[Appreciative Reader]

@271Days:

Heh, okay, I get what you’re saying. You’re saying the term “God” itself is incoherent, so that the term “theist” would be incoherent and meaningless too; and, as such, its obverse, that is to say, “atheist” or “atheism” would also not be quite coherent. Fair enough, that makes sense, so far as it goes.

Here’s three separate observations, as far as this, that I’m enumerating separately in the interests of clarity:

(1) Your argument is based squarely on how wide, in fact wide to the point of incoherence, is the term “God”. Therefore, it fails the moment we move from the general to the particular. So that when it comes to the Christian God, or the Judaic, or the Islamic, atheism continues to be a valid position. Likewise, when it comes to the Hindu gods, or the Shinto gods, or for that matter the Roman and Greek pantheons of yore, then too atheism continues to be a sound position to take. Ditto the RSSB God. Even, for that matter, some kind of Deistic impersonal Oneness-God, or some completely watered down abstract Aquinian “prime mover” God, or whatever --- the moment you move from wide-open generalization to any kind of exactitude, immediately atheism once again makes complete sense.

(2) This is kind of topsy-turvy, in the sense that you’re suggesting that atheism does not make sense because theism, generally speaking, itself does not make sense. In order to suggest that atheism is an invalid position, you’re first and foremost suggesting that theism itself is an incoherent and invalid position. And you know what? I can live with that. It is entirely possible that if, a century or two down the line, theistic superstitions become relegated to arcane history books, and the word “God” and “theism” will draw blank stares from everyone other than history nerds; should that come to pass, then the term “atheism” itself will become meaningless, absolutely.

Unfortunately we’re not there yet, though. As long as there remain theists, so long atheism remains a valid position. If the moment a theist comes out and declares himself such, you’re willing to jump out and tell him that what he’s saying is incoherent and nonsensical, the atheist will be content to stay silent in the sidelines. Of course, if and when the theist, in response to your ridicule, now moves from the general to the particular, well then, that’s when you GO TO #1.

(3) This third point is merely a variation on #1 and #2 above, but still might be meaningful for the sake of emphasis. Do you believe in the existence of ampembalanxes, 271Days? Yes, or Not-Yes? If the censor arrives at your door with his clipboard and asks you, “Do you tick a “Yes” to the question, ‘Do you believe in ampmbalnxes?’ ”, I guess you won’t agree to tick it, right? You may either just say “No” (choosing to define “No” in this context as simply “Not-Yes”); or you may just tell him his question is not meaningful without further clarification. The point is, you don’t tick in a “Yes”, you don’t say you believe in said undefined ampembalanxes. I don’t see why the atheist wouldn’t be content to do the same for the God question.

I don’t think the reasonable atheist has any kind of fixation over God. If people around him stopped going on and on and on about unsupported claims about God, the reasonable atheist would be content to not say anything at all. Let theism disappear completely from the face of the earth; and so will atheism.

If what I’ve tried to convey, in some detail, by those three (overlapping) points above, is what you’re saying here, then I guess we’re in agreement. But if you’re somehow trying to claim that while atheism is an incoherent position, but at the same time theism makes sense to you, then I’m afraid your argument is totally mistaken, and I disagree with you in the strongest possible terms, for reasons already discussed very clearly above.

-------

“Forgetting about that book for a second my view is simple. No matter what you posit ie. cosmos, universe, laws, you have already posited awareness first. You can’t get behind awareness. Whatever you say requires awareness first. Awareness is the First Principle. So I think we can logically say Awareness/Being/Spirit/ is God. You don’t have to question if awareness exists. It exists before anything else possibly can.”

…….I don’t see that, at all.

I think you’re conflating two things here: on one hand, what we know about something; and on the other, how we’ve come to know of it.

Sure, as far as the latter, awareness is indeed the first principle. You cannot become aware of some facet of existence without first having become aware in the first place. That’s tautological, absolutely. First principle, as you say.

However, that most certainly does not apply to the thing we’re becoming aware of. Sure, you need to first to become aware in order to become aware of the universe/cosmos. But that is most certainly not to say that awareness itself must first have existed in order for the universe/cosmos to exist or to have come into being. You’re basically stating the former position, and ending up implying the latter; and this latter position, when you unwrap your implicit argument and look clearly and closely at it, makes absolutely no sense at all, and in fact is plain wrong.

An analogy may make this obvious point doubly clear. Is it necessary for James’s Adam Dalgliesh to be alive in order for him to finally understand who is (or are) the one (or ones) that did away with the publishing magnate, whose murder he’s been investigating? Absolutely, yes. But that speaks only to Dalgliesh’s personal understanding, and not the subject of his investigation. Dalgliesh’s life, his consciousness if you will, is necessary to his personal understanding of the perpetrator’s identity, yes, absolutely; but his life and/or his consciousness have nothing at all to do with who the perpetrator(s) actually might be.

Of course, as earlier (that is, as with your argument about the semantics around theism and atheism), if you’re merely making the former argument without in fact meaning to slip in, by implication, the latter argument, then once again I don’t disagree with you. If all you’re saying is that in order for there to be awareness of the universe/cosmos, there must first be awareness --- and if you just stop there, not making any further implicit claims --- then fine, we’re agreed. But that’s just a blindingly obvious truism, an out-and-out tautology, and I don’t see the point of making that argument at all. Still, and like I said, if you choose to make that focused argument, entirely pointless though that argument seems to me (“pointless” in that it leads nowhere at all, and is most certainly not a refutation of atheism in any shape or form), then okay, I don’t disagree with you.

[Spence Tepper]

Ask for forgiveness, not evidence.
Ask when there is no one left you believe in to ask.
Ask when there is no hope of forgiveness from anyone and most certainly no justification for it.
Ask when there is no evidence left to justify you,
And all your excuses are paper thin, even to you.

The gateway to evidence is forgiveness...

When there is no evidence at all of anyone to give it...
And no justification for your life,
All for forgiveness..
Beg for it..

Then let's talk.
Walk the talk first, then talk about evidence.

[Dungeness]

@ A.R. : [But that is most certainly not to say that awareness itself must first have existed in order for the universe/cosmos to exist or to have come into being.]

Actually, er, I think that's precisely what the mystic asserts. Consciousness/awareness
is the creative force and transcends notions of what came "first". Creation was laid out
all at "once" in a time-less moment by consciousness itself. Time is only a device, a
plaything for the linear experience of creation. Or call it a framework. A "jungle gym"
for pre-schoolers to grow muscles and have the requisite quantum of fun.

Awareness is just the aspect of consciousness that observes and processes the
creation as it's experienced. Sometimes its insights are superficial; other times,
profound. Like Inspector Dagleish stumbling a bit over the static puzzle already
there waiting before he, in a flash of brilliance, cleverly id's the perps.

Similiarly, objects, events, other people are all placed in "time". It's a thrilling,
immersive play period which we author. To cry about, to laugh over, to absorb
various school yard lessons. Finally, to go back at the sound of the bell.

[271 Days]

@AR
You said, “Sure, you need to first to become aware in order to become aware of the universe/cosmos. But that is most certainly not to say that awareness itself must first have existed in order for the universe/cosmos to exist or to have come into being.”

Sure it does. For something to exist there must be awareness of it. To say things exist without any awareness of them is to be lost in imagination. How would you possibly know something exists without awareness of it?
You can say, “I can deduce that ants exist by awareness of ant mounds without ever seeing an ant.” On the surface that may seem correct but without awareness of ants those deductions are mere theories however well-informed.

Nothing exists without awareness first. Nothing. We can say existence and awareness are synonymous. That’s logic.

[Appreciative Reader]

Dungeness, and 271 Days, seeing that Brian's started a new thread around this discussion of ours, I've just now responded to both your comments in that thread.

Links:

https://hinessight.blogs.com/church_of_the_churchless/2021/10/-why-atheism-makes-sense-even-if-theism-doesnt.html?cid=6a00d83451c0aa69e2026bdef803c0200c#comment-6a00d83451c0aa69e2026bdef803c0200c

and

https://hinessight.blogs.com/church_of_the_churchless/2021/10/-why-atheism-makes-sense-even-if-theism-doesnt.html?cid=6a00d83451c0aa69e20282e1284fa4200b#comment-6a00d83451c0aa69e20282e1284fa4200b