Agnosticism is more appropriate than Atheism

You know, I said I wasn't going to reply to a post..but seeing as how you cheated death and all, I figured I would give it a shot. I am sort of amazed at how you so matter of factly put God in a nice little box called your definition. How you so conveniently try to frame God in a way that fits some pre-supposed version of what you (and admittedly many others) perceive God as. Although, I must say it did seem like you copy/pasted some previous essay. I will give you examples by which I disagree with you definition. Some I believe to be accurate most I don't. (a) perfect- Absolutely. As much as I am or you are. Anything that isn't perfect is only made that way by the definition by which humanity places a value upon something. Are butterflies perfect? Rainbows? Mold? Is nature perfect? (b) immutable: In other words un-changing. I think god could certainly change. If you believe in evolution, or if you agree that the Universe is expanding or perhaps you believe in the big bang. If as something as grand as the Universe has changed/ is changing why can't God. (c) transcendent: This is what the dictionary says about transcendence; 1.going beyond ordinary limits; surpassing; exceeding. 2.superior or supreme. 3.Theology. (of the Deity) transcending the universe, time, etc. a.Scholasticism. above all possible modes of the infinite. b.Kantianism. transcending experience; not realizable in human experience. I give trancendence a maybe, depending on which definition you would prefer. Outside the Universe? Begs the question, does the Universe have a container? Is it wholly empty? Beyond normal space? It's not hard to imagine that there are possibilities of space beyond what we typically see. Physics' multi-dimension theory. Outside time? Remember Einstein's theory? Space and time are relative. (d) nonphysical: God absolutely can not be non-physical. Even if god exists beyond current understanding of physics, god existence does not and cannot break the laws of of physics. (e) omniscient: All knowing. I don't believe this to be an accurate necessity for god to have. Even if the spark of the Universe was initiated by god, I don't think God knows or would care to know what everyone in the universe had for breakfast. Perhaps god could find out, but those are two different concepts. Also, omniscience implies a certain level of consciousness that god may or may not have. (f) omnipresent: I would say this is an accurate requirement of god (g) personal: Absolutely not. Although there may be a personal connection to god in the same way nature is a personal connection, it is not a requirement that we can converse and ask personal favors of God. (h) free: I'm not sure what you mean by 'free'. (i) all-loving: This is simply one quality put on God by humanity. We could easily replace this with jealous, vengeful or spiteful. (j) all-just: Another human quality put to God that implies that God requires a certain order to his creation or that God has rules we must follow in order to be judged and rewarded or punished accordingly. (k) all-merciful. Once again showing mercy would require that God has a rule book by which to judge such matters. I dismiss that allegation. (1) the creator of the universe: Perhaps. Just as likely the Universe formed and then God became into existence. Even further, perhaps God is and/or is of the Universe. I whole heartedly don't agree with that definition. That is 'A' definition, not 'THE' definition. Perhaps in the traditional theist perspective, that definition works, but Vi Veri, you are debating an Agnostic here. Why would you think i would prescribe to such irrational personifications to God that traditional theists represent. I have shown you definition to be flawed so the rest of you argument is negated. The subject by which God may exist is so vast that one debate or even one book could not encompass it's entirety. Below are a few examples of where we may look to find God: Like Einstein's Theory of Relativity, Quantum Physics reveals the Universe to be a single gigantic field of energy in which matter is just a 'slowed down' form of energy. Further, Quantum Physics has discovered that matter/energy does not exist with any certainty in definite places, but rather shows 'tendencies' to exist. (i.e. the 'Uncertainty Principle') Even more intriguing is the notion that the existence of an observer is fundamental to the existence of the Universe - a concept known as 'The Observer Effect' - implying that the Universe is a product of consciousness. (i.e. the Mind of God) (ME: In other words Quantum physics experimentation is showing that nothing may exist without some observer, with some level of consciousness, observing it. Perhaps the Universe couldn't exist without the Ultimate Consciousness, GOD) Quantum Physicist, Dr David Bohm goes further in his book 'The Implicate Order' in which he states that "primary physical laws cannot be discovered by a science that attempts to break the world into its parts." Yet this is the exact methodology of contemporary Western science which still taught in most of our educational institutions today. Bohm writes of an "implicate enfolded order" which exists in an un-manifested state and which is the foundation upon which all manifest reality rests. Bohm calls this manifest reality "the explicate unfolded order". Bohm goes on to say "parts are seen to be in immediate connection, in which their dynamical relationships depend in an irreducible way on the state of the whole system . . . Thus, one is led to a new notion of unbroken wholeness which denies the classical idea of analyzability of the world into separately and independently existent parts. As American physicist, Barbara Brennan, states in her book 'The Hands of Light': "Through experiments over the past few decades physicists have discovered matter to be completely mutable into other particles or energy and vice-versa and on a subatomic level, matter does not exist with certainty in definite places, but rather shows 'tendencies' to exist. Quantum physics is beginning to realize that the Universe appears to be a dynamic web of interconnected and inseparable energy patterns. If the universe is indeed composed of such a web, there is logically no such thing as a part. This implies we are not separated parts of a whole but rather we are the Whole. As Nick Herbert in his book 'Quantum Reality' puts it, "Whatever the math does on paper, the quantum stuff does in the outside world.": The 'rules' of the Universe seem to change reflect the 'maths'. In other words, the mathematical formulas that were initially developed to describe the behavior of universe turn out to govern the behavior of the universe. Thus, if the maths is manipulated to produce some absurd result, the matter and energy somehow changes to behave in exactly that absurd manner to reflect the formula! The recent findings of Quantum Physics about the universe being made up of an "interconnected unbroken wholeness", examples of Non-Locality phenomena (Bells Theorem) and the 'Observer Effect' implying that consciousness underlies all reality, has striking parallels with the ancient Esoteric concept that all reality is the manifestation of an infinite Singularity (creative principle) which I (Alex Paterson) choose to call Source, and most others call God. However, none of this is surprising to those who have experienced the 'Oneness' associated with some sort of deep spiritual experience or holotropic state. In conclusion, atheism requires a level of faith that, as a skeptical agnostic I am not ready to take. Perhaps one day science will show us that no form of higher consciousness exists and our consciousness simply melts away in to oblivion. So long as the jury is out on the subject, agnosticism is more appropriate than atheism