Agnostic-Atheism is the most logical position on religion.

As Con I will propose that Gnostic-Atheism is more logical, than Agnostic-Atheism. In particular it is more logical to take the stance that "no god exists", rather than taking the stance that "there is no evidence a god exists". In the permitted space I will only be able to sketch 3 arguments, putting forward the positive case for Gnostic-Atheism. First we will define theisms god. For theists god is a timeless, personal, supernatural entity, an immaterial consciousness, is the causal creator of the universe, is free to act intentionally, is maximally powerful, knowledgeable, present and wise. God is morally perfect, infallible, wants a relationship with humanity and is worthy of worship. This definition covers most theist conceptions, I have left out others which may be more specific to one religion or another. If some of the above attributes above are left out however, then we are either not talking about Theism (and therefore Atheism by extension), or we are not talking about anything that we could call a god. I will argue that there is no theistic god on the grounds of semantics, axioms and logic: 1. The meaninglessness of religious discourse, 2. The fact of existence, 3. Incompatible God attributes. 1. The meaninglessness of religious discourse For a fuller explanation of this argument refer to Francois Tremblay in his strongatheism. net blog. The contention is that religious discourse on the God concept (defined above) relies on evoking images to satisfy the needs of believers to believe. But what does it mean to say "God exists"? I will attempt to show that the phrase "God exists" is false, because the word God does not refer to an actual concept. We can identify 3 attributes in a concept 1. Primary (Identification or nature, making it what it is), 2. Secondary (Resultant or emergent features, describing it), 3. Relational (Causal, describing the interaction between it and other concepts). When we are looking to a description of a concept we are looking first for its fundamental nature (the question: what is it? ). To ask what a jumper is, and then receive a reply: that it is not made of a cotton fabric (negatively described primary attribute), it is brown (secondary attribute), and it keeps you warm (relational attribute), is meaningless. It says nothing about what a jumper actually is. It is the same with the God concept it is only positively described in secondary or relational terms, any primary attribute is always negative, ie god is immaterial, incorporeal, invisible etc. But none of these tell us what the concept of god actually is, only what it is not. As such it renders the concept invalid. Developing this more I will borrow the Yellow Quantum Whisperer (YQW) from a youtube atheist (KnownNoMore). What does it mean to say the YQW exists? We understand what Yellow is, what a Whisperer is and have at least some idea of what Quantum is (even if our knowledge is restricted to "it's very small"). But a YQW does not exist, whispering requires sound, which requires the movement of pressure waves through air, and of course air does not exist at the quantum level (only quanta). The same is true for yellow, it is a feature of light wavelengths, which is a product of quantum activity and doesn't exist at the quantum level itself. Again so it is for the god concept. What does it mean to say a timeless causal creator exists. Our view of causality is that it requires time. There is no time in a timeless realm (even if we can imagine such a thing). How did a god causally create anything? It is meaningless god talk and renders the concept invalid. But it is worse still, at least a YQW is not internally contradictory. Being Yellow does not stop you being a Whisperer for example. But with the concept of a God we have multiple competing claims for it's attributes. It is said to be perfect (having no desires), but also to desires a relationship with humanity. It is said to be changeless, but also answers prayers. This was more exhaustively analysed by Theodore Drange in his discussion "Incompatible-Properties Arguments: A Survey". Thus we are left to conclude that the concept of God is really an unknowable thing, in an unknowable realm interacting in an unknowable way. To suspend judgement on such a deeply flawed concept represents an abandonment of the intellect and advertises a willingness to believe in anything. If we suspend judgement on Gods non-existence, then we might as well do so for the YQW or anything else. At least the YQW, unicorns, LGM from Mars are more likely to exist than a God given their lack of internal contradiction. George Smith comments: "All of the supposedly positive qualities of God arise in a distinctively human context of finite existence, and when wrenched from this context to apply to a supernatural being, they cease to have meaning. " If a term refers to no thing which can exist, then it does not exist. Period. Gnostic-Atheism is therefore correct in asserting Gods non-existence. Thus it is a more logical position than the Agnostic-Atheism. 2. The fact of existence. Theism is a Subjectivist philosophy. It maintains that reality is the subject of a mind (a gods mind), in that it is created, dependant and wilfully altered by that mind (wishing can make it so). Under this perspective there are no absolutes apart from that mind. Existence (reality), logic, morality etc are relative to and dependant on that mind. Removal of that mind from its influence on the Universe would remove for example logic. But how can we conceive of Existence without logic, objects having no identity, contradictory objects (square triangles)? It is literally illogical. It has a further implication, it not only destroys our understanding of Existence but also annihilates our consciousness. The conclusion from this worldview is that a consciousness can and must be able to exist outside of Existence (how it does that is not made clear by the Subjectivist). But one thing is clear that at some point (a point prior to Existence) a consciousness (gods) was conscious only of its own consciousness. This is a contradiction in terms, because our understanding of consciousness is the faculty of identification of reality. With no reality, deprived of any inputs from an external world, with nothing to examine, we are left to wonder how a god could operate. Would it even recognise its own existence? It stands in relation to what? It exists where? It can think of what? However, the Objectivist view maintains that this Subjectivist model is false. The Primacy of Existence is the corollary of the axioms of existence and consciousness. This states that all existence is objective and we can use our passive consciousness to discover its nature and causal relationships. Under this view Existence is absolute and cannot be altered by mind (wishing does not make it so). Quoting Leonard Peikoff (Philosophy:Who needs it? p24). "The primacy of existence (of reality) is the axiom that existence exists, i. e. , that the universe exists independent of consciousness (of any consciousness), that things are what they are, that they possess a specific nature, an identity. The epistemological corollary is the axiom that consciousness is the faculty of perceiving that which exists and that man gains knowledge of reality by looking outward. The rejection of these axioms represents a reversal: the primacy of consciousness the notion that the universe has no independent existence, that it is the product of a consciousness (either human or divine or both). The epistemological corollary is the notion that man gains knowledge of reality by looking inward (either at his own consciousness or at the revelations it receives from another, superior consciousness). The source of this reversal is the inability or unwillingness fully to grasp the difference between one's inner state and the outer world, i. e. , between the perceiver and the perceived (thus blending consciousness and existence into one indeterminate package-deal). " What Peikoff goes onto explain is that to deny the Primacy of Existence you have to deny the axioms of existence and consciousness. The denial of those axioms leads to an immediate contradiction, given that you need them to be true to deny them (a stolen concept fallacy). Thus we can logically conclude from the mere fact of existence that the Primacy of Existence is true and Primacy of Consciousness is false. The implications for Theism are devastating. It is already pre-committed to the false conclusion and must also therefore be false. We therefore cannot just conclude that there is no evidence of a god (which is also true), we have to conclude that there is no god. Gnostic-Atheism is the logical conclusion from this. 3. Incompatibile God attributes It is not possible for a free causal creator to be both infallible and intentional. If you are incapable of error, there can be no intentionality in your action. If anyone intends to do something then there must be a possibility of failure else, at best, it is just reflex (like breathing). This means either Gods creation of the universe has no intentionality, or that God is not infallible. William Rowe also argued that God cannot be both free and morally perfect. Rowe argues that if God is morally perfect and wants a relationship with humanity, then it must create the best possible world for us. There can be only one best world for us from the set of possible worlds. This renders its action as lacking any freedom, it must create the World in a certain way. It has no option. Thus under this analysis, God is compelled to create the Universe, and also must do it in a certain way. Why, then given its lack of options would it be worthy of worship? Taken together these attributes unravel making the whole God concept invalid. An invalid concept refers to no actual thing, meaning it does not exist. Therefore Gnostic-Atheism is the only logical conclusion.